Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39875465›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Different keratoconus definitions can lead to substantial prevalence disparities in population-based studies.

Hasan Shabani, Bart T H van Dooren, Magda A Meester-Smoor, Annette A J M Geerards, Caroline C W Klaver, Wishal D Ramdas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hasan ShabaniDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. h.shabani@erasmusmc.nl.
Bart T H van DoorenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Magda A Meester-SmoorDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Annette A J M GeerardsCornea Centre, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline C W KlaverDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wishal D RamdasDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Stichting Combined Ophthalmic Research Rotterdam 6.4.0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This report explores the prevalence of keratoconus in a population-based cohort of adults aged 40 or older according to ten different definitions. All Rotterdam Study participants with reliable Pentacam scans and no prior corneal refractive surgery were cross-sectionally analysed (n = 2660). First, we applied a novel evidence-based definition. Suspected keratoconus was defined as having at least one eye with a final D-index (BAD-D) ≥ 2.6. Manifest keratoconus was defined as having at least one eye with: (1) BAD-D ≥ 2.6; and (2) a score of at least 4/10 on the novel Rotterdam Keratoconus Scale (RKS); and (3) a confirming assessment of the relevant Pentacam maps; and (4) meeting Holladay's criteria in case of recent contact lens usage. Using this proposed definition, 72 participants (2.71%, 95%CI: 2.16-3.40%) had suspected keratoconus, while 10 participants (0.38%, 95%CI: 0.20-0.69%) had manifest keratoconus. To assess reproducibility, two specialists independently applied the proposed definition, with a substantial inter-observer agreement (Kappa = 0.74). Interestingly, 6(60%) patients were unaware of having keratoconus. Applying nine alternative definitions from similar screening studies produced prevalence estimates ranging from 0.19 to 9.29% in the same cohort. Moreover, counting solely on a BAD-D cutoff of 2.6 to define keratoconus was unreliable, with a low positive predictive value of 14%. These findings explain partially the large heterogeneity in the reported keratoconus prevalences, underscoring the need for a standardized definition.

Indexed as

KeratoconusAdultAgedCorneal TopographyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrevalenceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID39875465
PMCPMC11775297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.