ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Swept-Source OCT and Scheimpflug Imaging in Clinically Unaffected Eyes of Very Asymmetric Ectasia.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the diagnostic ability of corneal tomography indices for detecting corneal ectasia using a swept-source OCT system (SS-OCT; ANTERION), a rotating Scheimpflug camera system (Pentacam HR), and a dynamic ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry and cornea analyzer (Corvis ST). Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Subjects: Participants were assigned to a healthy group (N = 228), a bilateral keratoconus group (N = 308), with 1 eye randomly selected, or a very asymmetric ectasia group with no clinical ectasia signs (VAE-NES, n = 91), with the unoperated fellow eye having clinical ectasia (VAE-E, n = 75). Methods: All participants underwent examination with all devices. The following indices were analyzed: Screening Corneal Objective Risk of Ectasia (SCORE), tomographical and biomechanical index (TBI, version 2), Pentacam random forest index (PRFI), Belin/Ambrósio total deviation value (BAD-D, version 3), and Corvis biomechanical index. Main Outcome Measures: Comparison of the area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. Results: When differentiating VAE-NES from healthy eyes, ROC analysis showed a significantly higher AUC for SCORE (0.888) compared with PRFI (0.765; Conclusions: Screening Corneal Objective Risk of Ectasia derived from SS-OCT and TBI from integrated Scheimpflug imaging demonstrated the highest and comparable diagnostic performance for detecting clinically unaffected fellow eyes without clinical ectasia signs but with ectasia susceptibility (VAE-NES). Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.