ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Detection of Infectious Corneal Perforation Using Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of anterior segment optical coherence tomography (ASOCT) compared to slit lamp examination for identification of corneal perforation in microbial keratitis, and to assess ASOCT grading reproducibility. Methods: We conducted a diagnostic concordance study of 150 eyes with microbial keratitis at a tertiary eye hospital in India. Two masked graders independently evaluated ASOCT scans for perforation, with disagreements resolved by consensus. We calculated Cohen's kappa for inter-grader concordance and intra-grader repeatability. Sensitivity and specificity of slit lamp examination were calculated using ASOCT as the reference standard. Logistic regression identified factors associated with disagreement between modalities. Results: Inter-grader agreement for ASOCT was near-perfect (κ=0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00). ASOCT identified perforation in 24 eyes (16.0%) compared to 12 eyes (8.0%) by slit lamp examination. Using ASOCT as reference, slit lamp examination demonstrated 33.3% sensitivity (95% CI, 14.9-52.2%) and 96.8% specificity (95% CI, 93.4-99.2%). Odds of disagreement were significantly higher for eyes with stromal thinning (OR=8.19; 95% CI, 2.27-29.54), mid-stromal involvement (OR=4.44; 95% CI, 1.08-18.30), and infection within 2mm of the limbus (OR=8.81; 95% CI, 1.77-43.80). Conclusions: ASOCT enables highly reproducible perforation grading and detects substantially more perforations than slit lamp examination, particularly in severe disease. These findings support ASOCT as an objective tool for clinical assessment and outcome ascertainment in microbial keratitis.
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.