ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2022
Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements with Four Different New Devices and Ultrasound Pachymetry.
Article in Turkish journal of 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corneal epithelial thickness in pseudoexfoliation syndrome: an anterior segment optical coherence tomography study.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Insights into atypical segmental layer thicknesses and phase retardation in thick corneas using ultrahigh-resolution polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the central corneal thickness (CCT) with 5 different devices, evaluate the repeatability of the devices, and determine the possible relationship between thickness values and sex. Materials and Methods: The study included 308 eyes of 154 patients (76 women, 78 men) between the ages of 18-30 who presented to the Ophthalmology Clinic of Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital. Autorefractor (Topcon, Japan), ultrasound pachymetry (UP) (Ceniscan, USA), high-resolution Pentacam (Oculus, USA), anterior segment-optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) (Optovue, USA), and Spectralis AS-OCT (Heidelberg, Germany) measurements were assessed. Results: The mean age of the study participants was 23.2±0.2 years and the mean CCT was 540±14.1 μm, with no statistically significant difference in CCT between sexes (p>0.05). Mean CCT values were 557.0±26.7 μm with the autorefractor, 543.6±32.9 μm with UP, 533.8±30.2 μm with the Oculus Pentacam, 519.8±30.1 μm with Optovue AS-OCT, and 547.5±31.6 μm with Heidelberg AS-OCT. Pairwise comparisons between devices showed that the Optovue AS-OCT gave significantly lower CCT measurements than the autorefractor and Heidelberg AS-OCT device (p=0.027 and p=0.033, respectively). The coefficient of repeatability for autorefractor, UP, high-resolution Pentacam, Optovue AS-OCT, and Heidelberg AS-OCT CCT measurements were 1.51%, 2.46%, 3.72%, 2.57%, and 3.34%, respectively. Conclusion: Measurements made with five different devices showed that CCT was comparable and clinically usable. However, it was determined that the Optovue AS-OCT showed lower CCT values compare to other devices. When compared in terms of repeatability, it was found to be lower in the Pentacam than other devices.
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.