ArticleCurrent eye research2025
Waveform Score Influences the Outcome Metrics of the Ocular Response Analyzer in Patients with Keratoconus and in Healthy Controls.
Article in Current eye research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive Temporal Mixture of Experts for Predicting Stiffness Metrics From the Ocular Response Analyzer and Identifying Keratoconus.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- The relationship between corneal biomechanics and endothelial morphology: evidence from a Saudi cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Intraocular pressure and ocular biomechanical parameters vary between generations of the ocular response analyzer in healthy and ectatic eyes.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo test whether the intraocular-pressure (IOP) and biomechanical outcome metrics from the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) differ between the measurement with the highest waveform score and the average of four measurements of any waveform score in participants with keratoconus and in controls.
methodsPatients with diagnosed keratoconus and healthy controls were recruited prospectively. Four measurements were made using a third-generation ORA. Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), waveform score, and six waveform parameters (p1area, p2area, w1, w2, h1, and h2) were considered as outcome metrics. In the left eye, outcomes from the measurement with the highest waveform score were compared against averaged outcomes from four measurements of any waveform score using either paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested ability of both data-selection approaches to differentiate the cohorts.
resultsOne-hundred ninety-two (
conclusionIn general, the best measurement had higher and narrower waveform peaks than the averaged measurement, which suggests better alignment between the device and the eye in the former than in the latter. Thus, making multiple measurements and then analyzing the one with the single highest quality may be preferred to analyzing the average of the group.
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.