ArticleEye (London, England)2023
A novel tool for quantitative measurement of distortion in keratoconus.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundKeratoconus is associated with thinning and anterior protrusion of the cornea resulting in the symptoms of blurry and distorted vision. The commonly used clinical vision tests such as visual acuity and contrast sensitivity may not reflect the symptoms experienced in keratoconus and there are no quantitative tools to measure visual distortion. In this study, we used a quantitative test based on vernier alignment and field matching techniques to quantify visual distortion in keratoconus and assess its relation to corneal structural changes.
methodsA total of 50 participants (25 keratoconus and 25 visually normal) completed the experiment where they aligned supra-threshold white target circles in opposite field in reference to guidelines and circles to complete a square structure monocularly. The task was repeated five times and the global distortion index (GDI) and global uncertainty index (GUI) were calculated as the mean and standard deviation respectively of local perceived misalignment of target circles over five trials.
resultsBoth GDI and GUI were higher in participants with keratoconus compared to controls (p < 0.01). Both parameters correlated with the best corrected visual acuity, maximum corneal curvature (K
conclusionOur findings show that the quantitative measure of distortion could be a useful tool for behavioural assessment of progressive keratoconus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.