ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Distinguishing subclinical from clinical keratoconus by corneal measurements.
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 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.
- Concordance of Corneal Tomographic Measurements Obtained via Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Scheimpflug Tomography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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: The study aimed to determine the stability of topographic and tomographic indices measured with Pentacam and to evaluate the biomechanical parameters measured with Corvis ST in the diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus (sKCN) and clinical keratoconus (KCN). Methods: This is a single-center cohort study with a retrospective review of topographic and tomographic indices and biomechanical parameters on adult patients with subclinical keratoconus (sKCN), clinical keratoconus (KCN), and healthy subjects (control group). The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to identify the cutoff values for evaluated indices able to distinguish between subjects with sKCN and those with KCN. Results: Seventy-six patients (76 eyes) in the sKCN group, 74 patients (132 eyes) in the KCN group, and 70 patients (140 eyes) in the control group were analyzed. Evaluated participants had similar age, but in the sKCN group, men were predominant ( Conclusion: Subclinical and clinical KCN shared common Pentacam parameters with excellent or good accuracy in distinguishing subjects with and without pathology, but Front Kmean and I-S Pentacam proved excellent or good for case finding and screening and are not shared with differentiation of the sKCN or KCN by the normal eyes. Furthermore, differentiation of sKCN by normal eyes could be done with KISA (Pentacam) and CBI (Corvis) parameters, but only CBI is not shared with KCN.
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.