ReviewInternational ophthalmology2023
Parameters of a basic ophthalmic examination that can ensure proper timing of corneal crosslinking in patients with keratoconus.
Review in International 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.
- Digital transformation of care for keratoconus patients: ML modeling structural outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Corneal collagen cross-linking in patients with keratoconus from the Dresden protocol to customized solutions: theoretical basis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
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
backgroundBy the time patients with keratoconus are referred to specialists for treatment, the disease-related thinning of their corneas has already made them ineligible (< 400 μm) for corneal crosslinking (CXL). PURPOSE: To find basic ophthalmic examination parameters that can ensure proper timing of referral for CXL.
methodsWe reviewed cases referred to Toyama University Hospital for the treatment of keratoconus from August 2011 to May 2021 to identify the frequency of contraindication due to minimal corneal thickness (MCT) < 400 μm at first visit. We performed a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis of basic exam parameters (uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity with hard contact lens, sphericity, cylindricity, and/or corneal astigmatism) potentially predicting eligibility for CXL. For those with an area under the curve (AUC) > 0.8, we determined cut-off values and calculated sensitivity and specificity.
resultsAnalyses included 66 eyes of 38 Japanese patients aged 25.0 ± 7.1 yrs (range 12-38 yrs) (56 male eyes and 10 female eyes). Thirty percent of the patients had an MCT < 400 μm. The AUC for uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) was 0.85. A cut-off value of 1.22 (converted to decimal visual acuity: ≥ 0.06) yielded 87% sensitivity and 75% specificity. The AUC for corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 0.90. A cut-off of 0.52 (converted to decimal visual acuity: ≥ 0.3) yielded 89% sensitivity and 75% specificity.
conclusionsIt is advisable to refer patients with keratoconus to a specialized facility for CXL when either of the following conditions is present: (i) UCDVA (decimal visual acuity) ≥ 0.06 or (ii) CDVA (decimal visual acuity) ≥ 0.3.
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.