ReviewAmerican journal of ophthalmology2025
Evaluating the Global Consensus on Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases Agreements Reached on Subclinical Keratoconus.
Review in American journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Triage for New Keratoconus Referrals Using Multimodal Deep Learning.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Combination of tissue-derived and shape-based parameters for subclinical keratoconus detection.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Motion-Tracking Brillouin Microscopy for Keratoconus Suspect Identification: Comparison With Multimodal Corneal Imaging.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Data-Driven Detection of Subclinical Keratoconus via Semi-Supervised Clustering of Multidimensional Corneal Biomarkers.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- [Diagnostic innovations for the early detection and characterization of keratoconus].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Bioinspired Tissue Transparency: Achieving Sclera-to-Cornea Transplantation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Mechanical Characterization of Normal, Subclinical, and Keratoconic Corneas Using Motion Tracking Brillouin Microscopy.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Early Posterior Corneal Changes and Belin/Ambrósio Scores Following Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Pentacam Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Correlation of tear cortisol levels with morphological and biomechanical parameters of keratoconus.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Brillouin microscopy for focal biomechanical measurements in normal and keratoconic corneas: A narrative review.Survey of ophthalmologyReview
- Focal Weakening/Thinnest Corneal Point Proximity in Normal, Subclinical, and Keratoconic Corneas Using Motion-Tracking Brillouin Microscopy.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the consensus agreements reached in the Global Consensus on Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases project for subclinical keratoconus, specifically that posterior corneal elevation abnormalities must be present to diagnose mild or subclinical keratoconus.
designLiterature review.
methodsDatabase review (PubMed) was performed on January 2, 2024, to identify studies evaluating the ability of posterior corneal surface metrics to identify subclinical keratoconus using the following search terms: posterior corneal elevation; keratoconus screening; corneal ectasia; subclinical keratoconus; keratoconus suspect; and asymmetric keratoconus. Articles were included for final analysis if they evaluated the ability of the posterior corneal surface to identify subclinical keratoconus compared to anterior corneal surface and/or thickness metrics and reported area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) data for multiple variables to allow for metric comparison. Metrics evaluated in each manuscript were categorized as anterior surface, thickness, or posterior surface. The relative discriminative performance of anterior surface (A), thickness (T), posterior surface (P), and the multimetric D score (D) metrics were evaluated based on AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity in differentiating subclinical keratoconus from normal controls were evaluated.
resultsThere were 29 articles identified that met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. In intrastudy comparison, anterior surface metrics (37.9%) and thickness metrics (39.2%) performed best at differentiating subclinical keratoconus from normal corneas, while only 4 out of 29 studies (13.8%) reported posterior metrics outperforming all metrics. In the subgroup analysis including the multimetric D score (n = 15), anterior surface metrics performed best (33.3%), followed by the D score (26.7%). In this D subgroup, no paper reported superior posterior metric performance.
conclusionsIn aggregate, posterior corneal surface metrics performed worse than anterior corneal and thickness metrics in differentiating subclinical keratoconic eyes from normal controls. These results demonstrate a lack of evidence to support the consensus claim that posterior elevation abnormalities must be present to diagnose subclinical keratoconus.
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.