ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of the crystalline lens diameter using swept-source optical coherence tomography.
Article in BMJ open 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the estimated lens diameter (eLD) of the crystalline lens in a large European cohort. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data sets from an Austrian population acquired between 2020 and 2022 were analysed in this study. Measurements included optical biometry (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) as well as anterior segment optical coherence tomography (CASIA2, Tomey, Japan). For eLD prediction, three different machine learning approaches were implemented.
resultsIn total, 2352 eyes of 2352 patients were included in this study. The eLD was normally distributed with a mean value of 10.18±0.56 mm, showing a statistically significant difference (p=0.008) between females and males (10.16±0.54 mm and 10.22±0.57 mm, respectively). There was a low but significant correlation (p<0.01 for all) with age (r=0.246), lens thickness (r=0.265), white-to-white (r=0.122), corneal radii (r=0.090), axial eye length (r=0.092), anterior chamber depth (r=-0.060), decentration (r=-0.087) and tilt (r=-0.159), respectively. Subanalysis of short and long eyes yielded no significant difference in eLD. For eLD prediction, age and lens thickness appeared to be relevant parameters, with all three models demonstrating low predictive accuracy.
conclusionThe crystalline lens diameter followed a normal distribution with no significant differences between short and long eyes. All three models demonstrated low predictive accuracies, suggesting that reliable prediction of eLD is currently not attainable.
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.