ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Comparison of correction formulas for intraocular pressure measured by Goldmann tonometer following various refractive surgeries (FS-LASIK, SMILE, tPRK).
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare different intraocular pressure (IOP) correction formulas in post-refractive surgery patients who underwent Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Methods: This prospective study included 160 patients (160 eyes) who underwent FS-LASIK (58 eyes), SMILE (52 eyes), or tPRK (50 eyes) at the Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University. IOP was measured using GAT and Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Optical zone diameter, ablation depth (AD), residual stromal thickness, refractive error correction, central corneal thickness (CCT), and mean corneal curvature (Km) were collected. Fourteen published GAT correction formulas (F1-F14) were applied to postoperative GAT values and compared with preoperative measurements. Differences between pre- and postoperative DCT readings served as a reference. Results: In FS-LASIK and SMILE, formulas F3, F4, and F11 showed superior correction performance. In FS-LASIK, the mean differences, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), and proportions of differences within ±2 mmHg were closer to or better than the DCT reference (0.58, 0.572, 55.17%), with F3 (0.25, 0.372, 72.41%), F4 (0.20, 0.373, 63.79%), and F11 (0.04, 0.324, 67.24%) showing high agreement. Similarly, in SMILE, F3 (0.25, 0.379, 57.69%), F4 (0.22, 0.375, 61.54%), and F11 (0.01, 0.399, 63.46%) outperformed or approximated DCT (0.86, 0.447, 44.23%). In tPRK, F1 (0.18, 0.653, 64.00%) and F2 (0.25, 0.316, 62.00%) provided better correction than DCT (0.19, 0.493, 56.00%). Conclusion: Formulas F3, F4, and F11 are applicable for GAT IOP correction in both FS-LASIK and SMILE eyes. F1 and F2 are more suitable for tPRK; the preoperative IOP parameters included in F1 may lead to assessment bias, making F2 the recommended choice when preoperative IOP is unavailable.
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.