ArticleScientific reports2026
The Corvis ST analysis of underaged versus adults' healthy eyes with comparable tomography detects softer corneas in children and adolescents as opposed to adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This cross-sectional cohort study aimed to analyze whether corneal biomechanics differ between healthy eyes of different age, even if they appear tomographically identical. All volunteers underwent corneal Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) and biomechanical examination (Corvis ST, CST both Oculus, Germany). Three groups (G) were formed according to age: (G1) children aged 3-10 years (n = 250, 7.7 ± 1.9 years (mean ± standard deviation)), (G2) adolescents aged 11-20 years (n = 350, 15.3 ± 2.9 years) and (G3) adults (n = 100, 48.7 ± 13.8 years). Main tomographic outcome parameters were: flat anterior (K1F)/posterior (K1B) and steep anterior (K2F)/posterior (K2B) meridians, thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) and maximal anterior keratometry (Kmax). Considering biomechanics, these were deformation amplitude ratio 2 mm (DA ratio 2 mm), integrated radius (IR), Ambrósio Relational Thickness horizontal (ARTh), stiffness-parameter (SP-A1) and corneal velocity at inward applanation (A1 velocity), stress-strain-index (SSI), Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), Biomechanical E-Staging (BEST) and the CST-derived non-contact (IOPnct) and biomechanically adjusted intraocular pressure (bIOP). The groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA and Dunn's post test. The three groups G1-G3 were tomographically comparable (p > 0.05 for K1F/K1B/K2F/K2B/TCT/Kmax). Biomechanically, there was no difference for DA ratio 2 mm and ARTh between G1-G3. Significant differences were found for SP-A1 (G1 < G2< G3, p = 0.0125), IR (G2 < G3, p = 0.0288), A1 velocity (G1 < G2< G3, p = 0.0027), SSI (G2 < G1< G3, p < 0.0001), CBI (G3 < G2< G1, p = 0.001), BEST (G3 < G2< G1, p = 0.0015), IOPnct (G3 < G1< G2, p = 0.0006) and bIOP (G3 < G2< G1, p < 0.0001). There exist small, yet significant biomechanical differences in CST measurements between tomographically comparable healthy corneas in dependence of age indicating biomechanically weaker corneas in children than in adults.
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.