ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Assessment of corneal epithelial thickness mapping by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epithelial and Topographic Corneal Remodeling After Ptosis and Ectropion Surgery: An MS-39-Based Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Epithelial Thickness Changes After Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK): An Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Normative distribution of corneal epithelial thickness on 9-mm OCT maps.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Effect of Age and Gender on Corneal Epithelial Thickness in Refractive Surgery Candidates.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
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
Background: To assess corneal epithelial-thickness (ET) mapping resulting from spectral-domain-optical-coherence-tomography (SD-OCT) by analysing its repeatability and reproducibility and its utility for screening corneal-refractive-surgery (CRS) candidates. Methods: ET was measured in 25-sectors by two-operators. Intra-subject-standard-deviation, coefficient-of-repeatability (CoR) and coefficient-of-variability (CoV) were calculated to evaluate repeatability. Reproducibility was evaluated using a Bland-Altman analysis. Scheimpflug-tomography, refraction, visual acuity, and patient history were used to make a decision on eligibility for CRS. After this decision, the surgeon was shown the patient's ET map and was asked to reconsider his analysis. The percentage of screenings that changed after evaluating the ET maps was determined. Results: Forty-three eyes with normal corneas (CRS-group) and 21 eyes not suitable for CRS (non-CRS-group) were studied. For the CRS-group, CoR ranged from 2.03 (central) to 19.73 μm (outer-inferonasal), with the central-sector showing the highest repeatability (CoV: 1.53-1.80%). For the non-CRS-group, CoR ranged from 3.82 (central-middle-superonasal) to 13.42 μm (middle-inferotemporal), with the inner-superonasal-sector showing the highest repeatability (CoV: 2.86-4.46%). There was no statistically significant difference between operators ( Conclusion: The SD-OCT provided repeatable and reproducible corneal ET measurements and may alter candidacy for CRS. Clinical trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register: https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00032797, identifier: DRKS00032797.
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.