ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2023
Differences in minimal disease knowledge of keratoconus patients: results from an international survey.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing clinical research participation in ophthalmology: a mixed-methods study in keratoconus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Trends in the Management of Keratoconus in Australia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe objective of this multicentre, multinational, prospective study was to assess the level of basic understanding that individuals with keratoconus possessed about their condition.
methodsWe recruited 200 active keratoconus patients who were under regular review, and cornea specialists established a standard of 'minimal keratoconus knowledge' (MKK) that included an understanding of the definition, risk factors, symptoms and treatment options for the condition. We collected data from each participant regarding their clinical characteristics, highest level of education, (para)medical background and experiences with keratoconus within their social circle, and calculated the percentage of MKK attained by each patient.
resultsOur findings revealed that none of the participants met the MKK standard, with the average MKK score being 34.6% and ranging from 0.0% to 94.4%. Furthermore, our study showed that patients with a university degree, previous surgical intervention for keratoconus or affected parents had a higher MKK. However, age, gender, disease severity, paramedical knowledge, disease duration and best-corrected visual acuity did not significantly affect the MKK score.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates a concerning lack of basic disease knowledge among keratoconus patients in three different countries. The level of knowledge exhibited by our sample was only one-third of what cornea specialists would typically anticipate from patients. This highlights the need for greater education and awareness campaigns surrounding keratoconus. Further research is needed to determine the most efficient approaches for enhancing MKK and subsequently improving the management and treatment of keratoconus.
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.