ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Corneal biomechanics and tomographic parameters for different corneal diameters in Chinese patients with myopia.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the distribution characteristics of corneal biomechanics and tomographic parameters for different corneal diameter (CD) in Chinese patients.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of 403 consecutive patients without ectasia who underwent binocular corneal refractive surgery and were followed up for more than 2 years. All patients underwent a preoperative corneal tomography using Pentacam and corneal biomechanics using Corvis-ST.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in the Stiffness parameter at first applanation (SP-A1), Ambrosio relational thickness to the horizontal profile (ARTh), Belin/Ambrosio enhanced ectasia total deviation index (BAD-D), Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), and Tomographic and Biomechanical Index (TBI) indicators among the CD ≤ 11.0 mm, 11.0 mm < CD ≤ 11.5 mm, 11.5 mm < CD < 12.0 mm, and CD ≥ 12.0 mm groups (all P < 0.05). CD was negatively correlated with BAD-D, CBI, and TBI (r = -0.475, -0.269 and − 0.237, all P < 0.05); Multiple linear regression analysis showed that TBI was negatively correlated with CD, SP-A1, and ARTh (R2 = 0.12, p<0.001).
conclusionsCD may correlated with the biomechanical results, where smaller CD is often associated with higher BAD, CBI, and TBI values. CD-specific thresholds for biomechanical indices may reduce overdiagnosis of keratoconus in small corneas.
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.