Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38516169›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology

Keratoconus: exploring fundamentals and future perspectives - a comprehensive systematic review.

Sana Niazi, Zisis Gatzioufas, Farideh Doroodgar, Oliver Findl, Alireza Baradaran-Rafii, Jacob Liechty, Majid Moshirfar

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Sana NiaziTranslational Ophthalmology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7411-8584
Zisis GatzioufasDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Farideh DoroodgarTranslational Ophthalmology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran Province, Tehran, District 6, Pour Sina St, P94V+8MF, Tehran 1416753955, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3758-0569
Oliver FindlDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hanusch Hospital, Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery (VIROS), Vienna, Austria.
Alireza Baradaran-RafiiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Jacob LiechtyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Majid MoshirfarJohn A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9241-5841
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of South Florida · USHanusch Hospital · ATUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: New developments in artificial intelligence, particularly with promising results in early detection and management of keratoconus, have favorably altered the natural history of the disease over the last few decades. Features of artificial intelligence in different machine such as anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and femtosecond laser technique have improved safety, precision, effectiveness, and predictability of treatment modalities of keratoconus (from contact lenses to keratoplasty techniques). These options ingrained in artificial intelligence are already underway and allow ophthalmologist to approach disease in the most non-invasive way. Objectives: This study comprehensively describes all of the treatment modalities of keratoconus considering machine learning strategies. Design: A multidimensional comprehensive systematic narrative review. Data sources and methods: A comprehensive search was done in the five main electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane), without language and time or type of study restrictions. Afterward, eligible articles were selected by screening the titles and abstracts based on main mesh keywords. For potentially eligible articles, the full text was also reviewed. Results: Artificial intelligence demonstrates promise in keratoconus diagnosis and clinical management, spanning early detection (especially in subclinical cases), preoperative screening, postoperative ectasia prediction after keratorefractive surgery, and guiding surgical decisions. The majority of studies employed a solitary machine learning algorithm, whereas minor studies assessed multiple algorithms that evaluated the association of various keratoconus staging and management strategies. Last but not least, AI has proven effective in guiding the implantation of intracorneal ring segments in keratoconus corneas and predicting surgical outcomes. Conclusion: The efficient and widespread clinical translation of machine learning models in keratoconus management is a crucial goal of potential future approaches to better visual performance in keratoconus patients. Trial registration: The article has been registered through PROSPERO, an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews, with the ID: CRD42022319338.

Indexed as

astigmatismcomputercontact lensescross-linking reagentsdeep learningdietfoodkeratoplastykeratorefractive surgical proceduremachine learningneural networksnutritionpenetratingphakic IOLs

Identifiers

PMID38516169
PMCPMC10956165
OpenAlexW4393052676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.