ArticleCureus2025
Immediate Effects of Goldmann Applanation Tonometry on Central Corneal Thickness Measurements Using Contact and Non-contact Pachymetry Methods.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective was to evaluate the immediate impact of Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT), a gold-standard intraocular pressure measurement technique, on the reliability of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements and to compare the outcomes between contact and non-contact pachymetry methods.
methodsFifty-one adult participants without ocular pathology were enrolled. Serial CCT measurements were conducted using three different pachymetry modalities across three days, both at baseline and post-GAT: Day 1 with an ultrasound pachymeter (USP), Day 2 using optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR), and Day 3 via anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT). The study involved comparing mean CCT and CCT standard deviation at baseline and post-GAT using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t-tests.
resultsIn the 610 CCT measurements performed, mean CCT did not show significant changes post-GAT overall or by modality (USP: +2.20 microns, p=0.63; OLCR: +1.0 microns, p=0.93; AS-OCT: +0.40 microns, p=0.95). However, contact USP consistently produced thicker corneal readings than non-contact OLCR and AS-OCT both at baseline and post-GAT (p < 0.0001). Notably, there was a significant increase in CCT standard deviation (+51.1%) and a decrease in adherence to technical repeatability specifications with contact USP following GAT (from 55% to 33%, p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe study suggests that contact intraocular pressure measurement methods like GAT may influence the reliability and repeatability of CCT measurements, as observed in our increased CCT measurement standard deviations. This could have important implications for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning for various ocular conditions. Given the study's limited sample size, further research may be warranted.
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.