ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
AvaGen Genetic Testing versus Ocular Screening Assessments Including the Keratoconus Severity Score (KSS) and Randleman Ectasia Risk Score System (ERSS) in Refractive Surgery Candidates.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether the AvaGen (AG) Genetic Eye Test provided additional information for screening for the presence of keratoconus (KC) and assessing KC risk in refractive surgery candidates, as compared to the Keratoconus Severity Score (KSS) and Randleman Ectasia Risk Score System (ERSS). Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients seeking refractive surgery at an eye clinic in the United States between January 2022 and July 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed those with a family history of KC, positive KC indices, or both. Corneal evaluations and demographic information were recorded and analyzed. KSS and ERSS criteria were utilized to evaluate postoperative KC and ectasia risk, respectively. Patients were categorized on how the AG genetic test compared to KSS and ERSS criteria. Clinicians assessed topographic indices, criteria scoring, and AG testing to deliver a definitive surgical recommendation. Results: Among the 19 patients evaluated for ectasia risk, AG testing showed lower KC risk than ocular screening in three patients (15.8%), equal risk in three patients (15.8%), and higher risk in 13 patients (68.4%). The mean AG scores were 45.7 ± 7.0, 49.0 ± 3.46, and 61 ± 13.0 for these respective categories. The most frequently identified KC risk genes were ADAMTS18, COL2A1, and COL4A1. The AG test modified the physician's recommendation for refractive surgery in nine cases (47.4%). Conclusion: Despite the promising application of AG testing for assessing KC risk, further research and development are needed to enhance its applicability for screening refractive surgery candidates, in addition to standard ocular screening approaches.
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.