ArticleScientific reports2024
Distribution and associated factors of keratometry and corneal astigmatism in an elderly population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progression and regression of keratoconus in an Iranian population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Longitudinal change in central corneal thickness among primary schoolchildren.Journal of optometryArticle
- The influence of ocular parameters on intraocular pressure values measured by different devices and the development of an optimized prediction model in a myopic population.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To determine the distribution of keratometry and corneal astigmatism (CA) and their association with demographic factors, systemic parameters, anthropometric measures, ocular biometric indices, and refractive errors in people aged 60 years and above. In this cross-sectional study, 160 clusters were randomly selected from Tehran city (Iran) using the multi-stage cluster sampling method. All participants underwent optometric examinations including testing uncorrected and best-corrected distance visual acuity, non-cycloplegic autorefraction, and subjective refraction. Pentacam imaging for all participants was carried out using Pentacam AXL. Keratometry and CA were reported based on Pentacam's data. The average, standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of flat keratometry (Kf), steep keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (mean K), and CA were 44.02 ± 1.58 D (95% CI 43.94-44.1), 44.86 ± 1.67 D (95% CI 44.78-44.94), 44.44 ± 1.58 D (95% CI 44.36-44.52), and 0.84 ± 0.74 D (95% CI 0.81-0.87), respectively. The 95% and 99% percentiles of mean K were 47.1 and 48.6 D, respectively. According to the multiple generalized estimating equation model, the mean K was significantly higher in males, in myopes, and in those with higher systolic blood pressure. Moreover, the mean K was inversely related to the axial length, height, anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal diameter, and central corneal thickness (CCT). The prevalence of various types of CA based on a cut-off > 0.50 D was as follows; with-the-rule: 32.5% (95% CI 30.6-34.4), against-the-rule: 18.2% (95% CI 16.7-19.7), and oblique: 10.0% (95% CI 9.1-11.0). The present study investigated the normal distribution of keratometry and CA in individuals ≥ 60 years, and results can be used in clinical matters, especially in intraocular lens power calculation. Sex, systolic blood pressure, height, and some biometric components such as ACD, corneal diameter, and CCT were significantly related to keratometry and should be considered.
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.