ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Best Fit Sphere Back and Adjusted Maximum Elevation of Corneal Back Surface as Novel Predictors of Keratoconus Progression.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of Maximum Keratometry Progression With Stratified Progression Criteria in Keratoconus Patients Using Machine Learning.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- The Combined Utilization of Epithelial Thickness and Tomographic Parameters in Keratoconus Detection.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Individual Risk Assessment and Prognostication of Outcomes After Corneal Cross-Linking.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Transepithelial Accelerated Crosslinking for Progressive Keratoconus: A Critical Analysis of Medium-Term Treatment Outcomes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated the Maximum Elevation of Corneal Back Surface adjusted to the same Best Fit Sphere Back (BFSB) between timeline measurements (AdjEleBmax) and the BFSB radius (BFSBR) itself as new tomographic parameters for documentation of ectasia progression and compare them with the most recent and reliable parameters used on keratoconus (KC) progression. Results: We evaluated the performance and the ideal cutoff point of Kmax, D-index, posterior radius of curvature from the 3.0 mm centered on the thinnest point (PRC), EleBmax, BFSBR, and AdjEleBmax as isolated parameters to document KC progression (defined as a significant change in two or more variables), we found a sensitivity of 70%, 82%, 79%, 65%, 51%, and 63% and a specificity of 91%, 98%, 80%, 73%, 80%, and 84% to detect KC progression. The area under the curve (AUC) for each variable was 0.822, 0.927, 0.844, 0.690, 0.695, 0.754, respectively. Conclusion: AdjEleBmax presented a greater specificity, larger AUC, and better performance compared to EleBmax without any adjustment, with similar sensitivity. Although AdjEleBmax and BFSB demonstrated smaller AUC and specificities comparing with Kmax and D-Index, AdjEleBmax still presented a good performance with a reasonable AUC. Since the shape of the posterior surface, more aspheric and curved than the anterior, may facilitate detection of change, we suggest the inclusion of AdjEleBmax in the evaluation of KC progression in conjunction with other variables to increase the reliability of our clinical evaluation and early detection of progression.
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.