ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Predictive accuracy of the ABCD progression display among patients with keratoconus: A historic cohort analysis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Individual Risk Assessment and Prognostication of Outcomes After Corneal Cross-Linking.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of the ABCD Progression Display and the ABCD grading system in a population of adult patients with keratoconus.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis of all adult patients with keratoconus followed at the Shamir Medical Center between 2012 and 2017. A recommendation by the cornea specialist to undergo corneal crosslinking (CXL) was used as a surrogate of ectasia progression. The ABCD grading was not available to the treating physician and was computed post-hoc. Sensitivity and specificity of the ABCD Progression Display was calculated, and multivariate regression was used to estimate the risk to undergo CXL when the ABCD Progression Display indicated progression. The ABCD grading was compared between patients who required CXL to those who did not. A single eye of each patient was included. Sensitivity and specificity of the ABCD Progression Display were 82% and 73%, respectively. A multivariable model adjusted for possible confounders, found that ABCD Progression was associated with a 7-fold risk of undergoing CXL compared to a patient in whom progression was not recorded in the ABCD Progression Display (OR = 7.55; 95% CI = 3.82-14.93, p < 0.001).
results293 eyes of 293 patients were analysed. Mean age at presentation was 26.92 ± 6.12 years. In 68 eyes, progression of keratoconus was recorded and CXL was performed (CXL-group).
conclusionThe ABCD Progression Display demonstrated adequate sensitivity and specificity and high predictive capabilities of keratoconus progression. It can be effectively utilized as an initial screening test in adults with 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.