Trial reportScientific reports2025
Comparison of asymmetric and symmetric offset ablation in myopic astigmatism patients.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in chord µ and chord α after FS-LASIK and PRK in low-to-moderate myopia: a comparative study with vector analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Exploring the interplay between chord α and chord μ, pyramidal wavefront aberrometry, and ocular biometric indices in preoperative refractive surgery candidates.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare differences in clinical outcomes of symmetric offset (SO) and asymmetric offset (AO) centration strategies in photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in patients with myopia and/or astigmatism, forty refractive surgery candidates who visited Farabi Eye Hospital's refractive surgery clinic from May to August 2022 were enrolled in the study. We randomly assigned one of each patient's eyes to the AO and the other one to the SO group using random blocks. Patients were followed for four months (median of 114 days). Ablation profile, Visual acuity (VA), and higher order aberrations (HOAs) were evaluated. Effective optical zone (EOZ) and its circularity index were calculated automatically by a MATLAB-based algorithm. There was no significant difference between the two groups' total ablation volume and maximum and central ablation depth (all P > 0.05). The two groups showed significant differences in minimum ablation depth, with a higher value for SO than AO (0.03 ± 0.03 and 0.01 ± 0.01, respectively, P-value < 0.001). 95% and 93% of the eyes in the AO and SO groups achieved UDVA of 20/20 or better at four months postoperatively (P-value = 0.78, Chi-square). There were no significant differences between postoperative mean RMS of higher order aberrations (HOAs) among AO and SO groups (all P > 0.05). The EOZ was 6.05 ± 0.64 in the SO group and 6.05 ± 0.68 in the AO group (P value = 0.99, paired t-test). 95% and 93% of the eyes in the AO and SO groups achieved UDVA of 20/20 or better at four months postoperatively (P-value = 0.78, Chi-square). Symmetric and asymmetric offset centration strategies result in safe and effective refractive correction. The refractive and visual outcomes of both methods were similar in low and moderate myopic astigmatism patients.
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.