ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparison of ocular residual astigmatism between children with clinically significant and non-significant astigmatism.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the difference of ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) in children with clinically significant astigmatism and non-significant astigmatism.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study. Participants were divided into the clinically significant astigmatism group (refractive astigmatism [RA] ≥ 1.00 D) and non-significant astigmatism group (RA < 1.00 D) based on RA on spectacle plane. Anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA) were obtained from IOL-Master 500. RA is the cylinder power after cycloplegia. ORA was calculated by the vector difference between RA and ACA. Multivariate linear regression was used to adjust for potential confounders, ensuring robust comparisons. The physical methods were used to evaluate the vector relationship between ORA and with-the-rule ACA.
resultsA total of 306 participants (306 right eyes) were included, among whom 155 (50.7%) were male. Results from multiple linear regression analysis indicated that group emerged as a significant negative predictor of ORA (B = -0.553, 95% CI: -0.651 to -0.456, t = -11.212, P < 0.001). Group was also a significant negative predictor of ORA/ACA (B = -0.463, 95% CI: -0.565 to -0.362, t = -8.978, P < 0.001). The ORA exerted a negative effect on with-the-rule ACA in 86.7% of eyes in the clinically significant astigmatism group, versus a much higher 99.0% in the non-significant astigmatism group (χ² = 19.765, P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn children with clinically significant astigmatism, the compensatory effect of ORA on ACA is weaker than in those without significant astigmatism. Additionally, children with clinically significant astigmatism exhibit smaller ORA compared to those without.
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.