ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2024
Comparison of Automated Versus Manual Analysis Programs for Quantification of Corneal Nerve Morphology in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the agreement between the automated analysis program and a manual program for quantification of corneal nerve morphology. Methods: Twenty-seven non-diabetic controls (mean age: 48.6±5.9 years) and 60 subjects with diabetes (mean age: 52.1±6.5 years) were enrolled. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), branch density (CNBD), and fiber length (CNFL) were quantified by the manual (CCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK) and automated program (ACCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK). Bland-Altman plots were generated to assess agreement between the two methods. Results: There were no differences in gender, age, total cholesterol, and LDL between the two groups, whereas BMI, HbA1c, and triglyceride were significantly higher and HDL was significantly lower in the T2DM group. CNFL was overestimated in the diabetic group and CNFD was underestimated in both groups with ACCMetrics (p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). The Bland-Altman plots for both groups demonstrated good agreement for CNFL, with a wide limit of agreement (LoA) of 95% for CNFD and CNBD. Conclusion: Manual and fully automated protocols for sub-basal nerve evaluation had lower agreement in the measurement of CNFD and CNBD than CNFL in healthy controls and subjects with diabetes.
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.