ArticleJournal of current ophthalmology
Comparing Pentacam HR Screening Indices in Different Normal Corneal Thicknesses among Refractive Surgery Candidates.
Article in Journal of current ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital transformation of care for keratoconus patients: ML modeling structural outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Individual Risk Assessment and Prognostication of Outcomes After Corneal Cross-Linking.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Biomechanical changes following corneal crosslinking in keratoconus patients.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- AvaGen Genetic Testing versus Ocular Screening Assessments Including the Keratoconus Severity Score (KSS) and Randleman Ectasia Risk Score System (ERSS) in Refractive Surgery Candidates.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Comparison of corneal and lens density measurements obtained by Pentacam and CASIA2 in myopes.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare Pentacam indices in normal eyes with different corneal thicknesses. Methods: It is a retrospective observational study. Ninety-six normal eyes of 96 patients who were referred for refractive surgery in a tertiary university-based hospital from October 2015 to April 2019 were recruited consecutively. Corneal keratometry as well as Pentacam's software Belin-Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display (BAD) parameters including pachymetry progression indices (PPIs), maximum Ambrosio's relational thickness (ART-max), corneal elevations, normalized deviations, BAD total deviation value (BAD-D), and anterior surface indices were measured by Pentacam HR (Type 70900). The included were classified as thin (26 eyes), average (45 eyes), and thick (25 eyes) corneas with the thinnest point thickness of ≤496 μm, 497-595 μm, and ≥596 μm, respectively. The specificities of all parameters were calculated based on routine cut-off values. Results: The refraction, keratometry, and elevations were not different ( Conclusions: The pachymetry-related indices and BAD-D were different among normal corneas with various thicknesses. The specificities of PPIs, ART-max, and BAD-D of thin corneas were lower than in thick corneas.
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.