ReviewBMC ophthalmology2024
Comparison of automated corneal endothelial cell analysis in healthy and postoperative eyes with phakic intraocular lens: a cross-sectional study and literature review.
Review in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Paired-eye comparison of endothelial cell density and vault height after implantable collamer lens implantation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMeasurement of corneal endothelial cells is critical for postoperative evaluation of phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) surgery. However, inter-instrument differences in corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) after pIOL implantation have not yet been reported. This study aimed to compare automated corneal endothelial cell analysis between CellChek-20 (Konan Medical, Hyogo, Japan) and EM-4000 (Tomey, Nagoya, Japan) in healthy and postoperative eyes with pIOL.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 154 healthy and 236 postoperative eyes after pIOL surgery. Endothelial cell measurements were performed using CellChek-20 and EM-4000 with autofocusing and automated image analysis. ECD, percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX), coefficient of variation in cell size (CoV), and central corneal thickness (CCT) were compared between the two devices.
resultsThe ECDs of the two devices were highly correlated in both healthy (Spearman's correlation coefficient [r] = 0.805; p < 0.001) and postoperative (r = 0.901; p < 0.001) groups. ECD from CellChek-20 was higher than EM-4000 in both healthy (mean difference = 228.9 cells/mm
conclusionThe ECD values between the two instruments were correlated, but that of the CellChek-20 was significantly higher than that of the EM-4000 in both healthy and postoperative eyes after pIOL surgery. Most previous studies have also shown that the Konan software overestimated the ECD compared to other products in automatic measurement mode. The possibility of measurement bias should be considered when replacing equipment used for corneal endothelial cell measurements.
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.