ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2022
Potential for Collider Bias in Studies Examining the Association of Central Corneal Thickness With Glaucoma.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular and Systemic Risk Factors and Biomarkers for Primary Glaucoma: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Pooled it
- Association of intraocular pressure with ocular parameters in 14-18-year-old Chinese junior high students: the Anyang Childhood Eye Study.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Clinical characteristics and risk factors of ocular hypertension: a case-control study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Decoding the Cornea-Glaucoma Association: Evidence From Mendelian Randomization.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Central corneal thickness and the risk of primary open-angle glaucoma: a Mendelian randomisation mediation analysis.The British journal of ophthalmology · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Central corneal thickness (CCT) may be biologically related to glaucoma or observed as associated with glaucoma simply due to its effect on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement. We aimed to determine if the previously reported CCT-glaucoma associations, in which the analyses were adjusted for IOP or participants were selected on IOP, could be explained by collider bias. Methods: We simulated datasets mimicking a longitudinal population-based study (Los Angeles Latino Eye Study) and a trial (Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study) such that: (i) CCT was not truly associated with glaucoma, (ii) CCT and true IOP both contribute to measured IOP, and (iii) true IOP contributes to glaucoma risk. We then tested whether an association between CCT and glaucoma could be spuriously induced simply by adjusting for or selecting on measured IOP. Results: A thinner CCT was significantly associated with higher glaucoma incidence in the simulated longitudinal population-based study when adjusted for measured IOP, but not crudely (unadjusted). A thinner CCT was crudely associated with glaucoma incidence in the simulated trial in which the participants were selected for high measured IOP. Effect sizes in the simulations were similar to those observed in the original studies. Conclusions: Our findings question whether CCT is biologically associated with glaucoma and suggest that current evidence may be due to collider bias. This indicates that CCT alone cannot be used as a factor to identify people at high risk of glaucoma in the general population. Using CCT in combination with IOP may be superior to using IOP alone.
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.