ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Intraocular pressure and ocular biomechanical parameters vary between generations of the ocular response analyzer in healthy and ectatic eyes.
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 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.
- Adaptive Temporal Mixture of Experts for Predicting Stiffness Metrics From the Ocular Response Analyzer and Identifying Keratoconus.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Intraocular pressure measurement in keratoconus: a narrative review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
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
Introduction: This study evaluated the agreement between a third-generation (G3) ocular response analyzer (ORA) and a first-generation (G1) ORA, and tested the ability of the keratoconus match index (KMI) to identify keratoconus. Methods: Healthy participants ( Results: There was no difference in IOPcc or IOPg between the devices in both cohorts. CH was significantly greater for the G3 than for the G1 in healthy participants but not in keratoconus participants. For both cohorts, measurements of waveform score, KMI, p1area, p2area, w2, h1, and h2 were greater for the G3 than for the G1. Only w1 was smaller for the G3 than for the G1. There was no difference in the ability of KMI to differentiate ectatic from healthy eyes between the devices. Discussion: Although the G1 and G3 can identify keratoconus using KMI, there is meaningful variation between them in IOP and biomechanical outcome parameters. Thus, clinicians and researchers should compare results between the devices with caution and should state which generation produced the data.
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.