Observational studyJapanese journal of ophthalmology2025
Predictive value of enhanced corneal biomechanical parameters for ectasia progression.
Observational study in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- Corneal biomechanical parameters as novel predictors of refractive stability after small incision lenticule extraction.BMC ophthalmology · 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
purposeTo determine whether corneal biomechanical parameters can predict ectasia progression. STUDY
designRetrospective observational study.
methodsThe baseline corneal biomechanical parameters of 64 eyes of 41 young patients (age, < 25 years at the first visit) who were diagnosed with keratoconus (KC) or suspected KC at Osaka University Hospital and followed up for more than two years were reviewed. Suspected KC was defined as borderline cases with no definitive clinical or topographical abnormalities in both eyes. The eyes were divided into progressed (P) and non-progressed (NP) groups using the ABCD grading system of Scheimpflug-based tomography. The Scheimpflug-based corneal biomechanical parameters evaluated included deformation amplitude ratio within 2 mm, integrated radius, Ambrósio relational thickness to the horizontal profile, stiffness parameter at the first applanation, stress-strain index, E-staging, and Corvis Biomechanical Index. The optimized tomographic/biomechanical index (TBIv2), Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Deviation (BAD-D), and inferior-superior axial steepening values from Scheimpflug-based tomography were also evaluated.
resultsTwenty-three and 41 eyes were categorized into the P and NP groups, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that age, BAD-D, and TBIv2 could predict ectasia progression. The specificity, sensitivity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values for BAD-D combined with age were 0.82, 0.60, and 0.83, respectively, whereas those for TBIv2 combined with age were 0.65, 0.82, and 0.82, respectively.
conclusionsBaseline TBIv2 is a potentially useful predictive marker for ectasia progression in young patients, whereas baseline BAD-D could be used for establishing a definitive diagnosis.
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.