ArticleScientific reports2025
The correlation between ocular residual astigmatism and wavefront-guided FS-LASIK correction effects in myopic astigmatism patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the impact of ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) on the astigmatic correction outcomes of wavefront-guided femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (WFG FS-LASIK) in myopic astigmatism patients. Retrospective cohort study. This study analyzed 90 patients (177 eyes) undergoing WFG FS-LASIK at Chongqing Medal Eye Institute between January 2015 and May 2021, all with complete follow-up data spanning 15 days-6 months postoperatively. Participants were categorized into three groups based on the ratio of ORA to refractive astigmatism (RA), and the axial difference between ORA and anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA): Group1 (42 eyes): |ORA|/|RA| < 1 and the axial difference between ORA and ACA was ≦ 45°. Group 2 (86 eyes): |ORA|/|RA| < 1 and the axial difference between ORA and ACA was > 45°. Group3 (49 eyes): |ORA|/|RA| > 1 and the axial difference between ORA and ACA was > 45°. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 6 months postoperatively was compared among the three groups. Alpins vector analysis was performed to compare the accuracy of astigmatic correction, quantified by: Angle of error (AE): axial deviation between the surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) and target induced astigmatism (TIA); Correction index (CI): ratio of SIA to TIA (ideal value = 1.0). The mean |AE| values significantly differed among groups (P < 0.05), being lowest in Group 1 (9.29°) and highest in Group 3 (26.64°). Correction index (CI) defined as the ratio of SIA to TIA. The mean CI values were1.00 (Group 1), 1.19 (Group 2) and 3.26 (Group 3).No statistically significant differences were observed in postoperative UDVA among the three groups (P > 0.05). In WGF FS-LASIK, the consistency between the axis of ORA and ACA affects the degree of deviation in astigmatic axis correction, but had no significant impact on UDVA.
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.