ReviewCureus2025
The Relation of Corneal Arcus With Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
The prognostic value of corneal arcus (arcus senilis) for cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains debated. We evaluated associations of arcus with cardiometabolic risk, prevalent CVD, and incident events, and summarized how consistently studies adjusted for standard risk factors. We systematically reviewed observational studies (1960-2017) from Asia, Europe, and North America. Designs included cross-sectional, case-control, and prospective cohorts. Risk of bias was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (cohort/case-control) and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (cross-sectional). Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of arcus increased with age and was higher in men. Cross-sectional and case-control evidence showed consistent associations with atherogenic lipid profiles and a higher burden of prevalent CVD. Prospective findings were mixed: arcus predicted incident events in targeted subgroups (notably younger men and some Asian male populations) but offered limited independent prognostic value and minimal incremental discrimination in general, older populations once age, sex, and lipids were considered. Overall risk of bias was low in most cohorts; moderate ratings reflected limited confounder control, non-slit-lamp exposure assessment, or sampling constraints. Corneal arcus appears to primarily reflect cumulative lipid exposure. In adults under 50 years or select higher-risk men, its presence should prompt lipid evaluation and risk review; however, its low sensitivity means the absence of arcus does not exclude CVD.
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.