ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2026
Clinical evaluation of corneal elasticity and true IOP using a dual-applanation tonometer.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical feasibility of a modified Goldmann applanation system capable of estimating true intraocular pressure and corneal elasticity Methods: A dual-applanation prism was developed, allowing two sequential IOP readings under identical optical conditions. A mathematical model was applied to compute true intraocular pressure and the corneal Young's modulus measured applanation forces, corneal thickness and curvature. Fifty-three healthy eyes were examined. Model-derived true intraocular pressure values were compared with standard GAT, Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and corneal Young's modulus. Results: Mean IOPT was 15.72 ± 2.44 mmHg, significantly higher than GAT measurements (14.86 ± 2.71 mmHg; mean difference +0.86 ± 1.82 mmHg, p = 0.0012). IOPT showed strong agreement with Pascal DCT (15.60 ± 2.35 mmHg), with minimal bias (+0.15 ± 1.63 mmHg, p = 0.499) and high correlation (r = 0.93, p < 0.0001). Measurement variance was lower for IOPT than for GAT, indicating improved precision. The mean Conclusion: This dual-applanation system enables real-time
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.