ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022
Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of correction formulas for intraocular pressure measured by Goldmann tonometer following various refractive surgeries (FS-LASIK, SMILE, tPRK).Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- [Toric-ICL shows better predictability and efficacy than FS-LASIK for myopia correction in patients with moderate to high myopia and astigmatism].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the accuracy of non-contact tonometry, Pentacam, and corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST) for the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) or femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) surgery.
methodsA total of 49 patients (98 eyes) undergoing FS-LASIK or SMILE surgery at West China Hospital, Sichuan University from January to March 2021 were enrolled in this prospective, comparative, self-controlled study. IOP values were measured with non-contact tonometer, Pentacam, and Corvis ST before surgery and 1 month after surgery. Pentacam-derived postoperative IOP values were corrected using five correction formulas (Ehlers, Shah, Dresden, Orssengo-Pye, and Kohlhaas), while Corvis ST-derived values were corrected using a single formula.
resultsIn the SMILE group, no significant differences were observed between the IOP values corrected with the Shah formula before and after surgery (t = 0.17, P = 0.869), whereas postoperative IOP values corrected with the other formulas were significantly different from the corresponding preoperative measurements (P < 0.05). In the FS-LASIK group, postoperative IOP values corrected with the Ehlers, Shah, or Corvis ST formulas were significantly different from the corresponding preoperative IOP measurements (P < 0.05), but no significant differences were observed between pre- and postoperative IOP values corrected with the Dresden (t = - 0.08, P = 0.941), Orssengo-Pye (t = - 0.52, P = 0.604), or Kohlhaas (t = 1.22, P = 0.231) formulas.
conclusionsPentacam's Shah correction formula seemed to be the most appropriate method for accurately measuring postoperative IOP in patients undergoing SMILE surgery, while the Dresden, Orssengo-Pye, and Kohlhaas correction formulas of Pentacam were identified as the most reliable methods for estimating IOP in patients after FS-LASIK surgery.
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.