ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparison of the reliability of corneal curvature and eccentricity measurements in myopic eyes using four different devices.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myopia is a global public issue which is increasing worldwidely. Instruments are essential for measurement in the diagnosis and evaluation of myopia. Comparing the agreement of corneal curvature and eccentricity measurements obtained using four different devices is meaningful for clinical research. We present enrolled 175 patients in this prospective study. The corneal curvature were measured by The Canon RK-F1, Tomey TMS-4, Medmont E300, Pentacam HR, eccentricity measured by last three devices. The agreement and differences were compared among the four instruments. There was a weak correlation between the TMS-4 and Pentacam HR in eccentricity steep (Es) compared to other devices. The Bland-Altman plots with 95% level of agreement showed low agreement of corneal curvature measured by the four instruments. The 95% LoA of K steep (Ks) and K flat (Kf) were > 0.5D for all instruments. For eccentricity, eccentricity mink (Em), also eccentricity flat, showed high agreement among the TMS-4, Pentacam HR, and Medmont E300 topographers, but Es showed low agreement. The agreement of corneal curvature measured by the four instruments was low, which cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice. The Es obtained from TMS-4, Medmont E300, and Pentacam HR can be used interchangeably.
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.