ArticleScientific reports2026
Corvis ST parameters in primary open angle and angle closure glaucoma after propensity score matching.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study evaluated differences in Corvis ST tonometry (CST) parameters between eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) using propensity score matching. We analyzed 48 eyes with POAG and 48 eyes with PACG. Twelve CST parameters were compared using linear mixed-effects models, with group as a fixed effect and subject ID as a random intercept to account for inter-eye correlation, adjusting for age, sex, axial length, intraocular pressure, and central corneal thickness. Multiple comparisons were controlled using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Compared with POAG eyes, PACG eyes showed longer A2 time, greater A2 deformation amplitude, and greater whole-eye movement; however, these differences were no longer statistically significant after correction for multiple testing. After adjustment for relevant covariates and correction for multiple comparisons, this study did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in CST parameters between POAG and PACG eyes. The uncorrected trends toward greater indentation-related responses in PACG eyes should be regarded as exploratory.
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.