ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Detecting True Change in Keratoconus after Intracorneal Ring Segment Implantation.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeatability and Reliability of Corneal Tomography in Keratoconus Patients with Corneal Allogenic Intrastromal Ring Segments.Beyoglu eye journal · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Confirming the progression of keratoconus is of paramount relevance to providing the appropriate treatment. Real change should be considered consistent over time. It must be greater than the variability of the measurement of the device used to monitor the cornea. The present study aimed to assess the intraobserver repeatability and intersession reproducibility of a Scheimpflug camera in measuring corneal parameters in virgin keratoconus and intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) implantation eyes to discriminate real change from measurement noise. Sixty keratoconus and 30 ICRS eyes were included. Corneal parameters were determined in three consecutive measurements and were repeated 2 weeks later. The precision within the same session for all parameters was better in the keratoconic eyes, with mean repeatability limits 33% narrower (range 13% to 55%) compared with ICRS eyes. Mean reproducibility limits were 16% narrower (range +48% to -45%) compared with ICRS eyes. The cutoff values to consider a real corneal shape change were lower for virgin keratoconic than for ICRS, except for the thinnest corneal thickness and Stage C (ABCD system), which were the opposite. Corneal tomography measurements in ICRS eyes showed worse accuracy than in virgin keratoconus, which should be taken into account by practitioners in patients' follow up.
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.