ReviewDie Ophthalmologie2026
[Diagnostic innovations for the early detection and characterization of keratoconus].
Review in Die Ophthalmologie, 2026. 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
backgroundKeratoconus is a progressive, ectatic corneal disease with considerable potential for visual impairment, especially in advanced stages. Early and precise diagnostics are crucial to avoid progression of the disease.
objectiveModern diagnostic procedures for recognizing keratoconus, including subclinical stages are presented and evaluated. MATERIAL AND
methodsAnalysis of current imaging and biomechanical procedures, e.g., Scheimpflug tomography, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and the Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), including combined indices (e.g., BAD‑D, SCORE) and epithelium-based analyses, taking the current classification systems (ABCD, Amsler-Krumeich) into account.
resultsTomographic procedures enable detailed analysis of the anterior and posterior cornea as well as the pachymetric distribution. Biomechanical measurements complement the morphological assessment. Combined indices increase the sensitivity in the detection of subclinical cases. Nevertheless, diagnostic uncertainties remain in very early cases.
conclusionModern multimodal diagnostics greatly improve the detection and follow-up of keratoconus; however, the diagnosis of subclinical forms remains challenging, highlighting the importance for frequent follow-up controls.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41484590What 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.