ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Agreement between Scheimpflug-Placido topographer (Sirius
Article in International 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the Scheimpflug-Placido Topographer (SP-T; Sirius
methodsThe 125 eyes of 125 patients were included in the study and were divided into four groups based on their stage of keratoconus (KC) and the presence or absence of corneal cross-linking (CXL). The first group (KC1 group, n = 33) consisted of patients with stage 1 KC who underwent CXL, while the second group (ncKC1 group, n = 33) comprised patients with stage 1 KC who did not receive CXL. The third group (KC2 group, n = 26) included patients with stage 2 KC who underwent CXL, and the final group (control group, n = 33) consisted of healthy subjects. Root mean square (RMS) HOA (High-order aberration), horizontal trefoil (TrA), spherical aberration (SpA) and horizontal coma were compared between the SP-T and asSS-OCT to determine differences and agreement.
resultsA notable difference was observed between the devices in the control group for RMS HOA, horizontal TrA, and coma (p = 0.001, p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively). In the KC1 group, a proportional bias was identified with regard to horizontal coma and RMS HOA (p = 0.025 and p = 0.043). For SpA, a proportional and fixed bias was observed in both the ncKC1 and control groups.
conclusionsIn the KC2 group, all parameters were in agreement, proving interchangeability between the SP-T and asSS-OCT devices. However, horizontal coma and HOA in KC1, as well as SpA in the control and ncKC1 groups, did not demonstrate this agreement. The interchangeability between devices may change according to the KC stage or CXL status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39964616What 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.