ArticlePloS one2026
Repeatability and reproducibility of a clinical device for Brillouin microscopy to measure the biomechanics of the anterior segment of the eye: In vivo tests.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Corneal Biomechanics in Glaucoma: Current Evidence for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Prognosis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
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
purposeWe performed a prospective study to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the novel Brillouin Optical Scanning System (BOSS®) in measuring the biomechanical properties of the cornea and crystalline lens in vivo, to determine device utility in a clinical setting.
methodsAdult study participants underwent standard ophthalmic exams to confirm eligibility. At two separate visits to the clinic, monocular lens scans and corneal scans (one point and seven points, respectively) were performed three times on each of three BOSS devices, operated by different technicians. The measured Brillouin parameters per person included the lens stiffness and the stiffnesses (e.g., "Mean", "Minimum") across the seven corneal points. Results were combined across participants to calculate the coefficients of variation (CVs) for repeatability (within each device) and reproducibility (across devices), along with the repeatability and reproducibility limits (2.8 times the respective standard deviations).
resultsEleven of the 33 participants (ages 24-72 years; 15 females) had keratoconus (5 with prior crosslinking, 3 without crosslinking, and 3 post-keratoplasty); the other 22 participants were visually normal. There were no adverse events. The average lens stiffness was 3.33 ± 0.052 GPa (mean ± SD), with an overall repeatability CV of 1.6%, with values ranging from 3.35 ± 0.037 GPa with a CV of 1.1% to 3.30 ± 0.071 with a CV of 2.1% across the separate devices. The mean corneal stiffness was 2.83 ± 0.031 GPa, with an overall repeatability CV of 1.1%, ranging from 2.85 ± 0.015 with a CV of 0.5% to 2.81 ± 0.036 with a CV of 1.3% across devices. The reproducibility CVs were 2.1% and 1.6% for lenses and corneal Means, respectively.
conclusionsThe study results demonstrated consistent stiffness values for both lenses and corneas within and between the three BOSS devices tested. The study shows that this device could be a useful new biomechanics-measuring tool for applications in ophthalmology.
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.