ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Corneal Biomechanics in Glaucoma: Current Evidence for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Prognosis.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Corneal biomechanical measurements influence the interpretation of intraocular pressure and may also capture aspects of ocular-wall susceptibility that are not represented by central corneal thickness alone. Their diagnostic and prognostic relevance in glaucoma has therefore attracted increasing attention. Methods: A structured narrative search of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed from database inception through July 25, 2026, using combinations of terms related to glaucoma, ocular hypertension, corneal biomechanics, corneal hysteresis, the Ocular Response Analyzer, Corvis ST, dynamic Scheimpflug imaging, and emerging elastographic techniques. Reference lists of eligible publications and key reviews were also screened. Peer-reviewed clinical studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, authoritative reports, and selected foundational experimental studies were considered. Review Findings: The Ocular Response Analyzer and Corvis ST provide device-specific measurements that are not directly interchangeable. Lower corneal hysteresis is consistently associated with glaucoma and with faster structural or functional progression, whereas the diagnostic performance of Corvis ST-derived parameters is more heterogeneous and varies by glaucoma subtype, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, axial length, and treatment exposure. Unlike previous broad overviews, this review explicitly separates diagnostic from prognostic evidence, contrasts findings across glaucoma phenotypes and devices, and examines the effect of major confounders. Brillouin microscopy and optical coherence elastography may eventually provide spatially resolved tissue measurements, but neither has been validated for routine glaucoma management. Conclusion: Corneal biomechanical measurements should currently be regarded as complementary biomarkers rather than stand-alone diagnostic endpoints in glaucoma. Future progress will depend on standardized acquisition and reporting, subtype-specific prospective validation, and multimodal integration with structural and functional glaucoma assessments.
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.