ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Investigating intraocular pressure fluctuations using corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology tonometry (CST) with varied resting intervals.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: To investigate the effects of different resting intervals on successive intraocular pressure (IOP) and biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP) measurements from corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology tonometry (CST). Methods: This was a prospective repeated-measures observational study in young healthy myopes. Three successive IOP and bIOP measurements were acquired using the CST in both eyes of each participant, using four intervals between three successive measurements in the following order, 5 min (T5), 2 min (T2), 30 s (T30), and immediately after the other (Ti). T5-1 was the baseline measurement followed by T5-2 5 minlater, and T5-3 after another 5-min interval. A similar approach was applied to other intervals. A 5-min resting period was provided between successive sets of triplicate measurements. IOP and bIOP results were compared with four intervals and three measurements as the main effects. Results: A total of 88 myopic participants were recruited. Their mean age was 21.5 ± 2.5 years (from 19 to 31 years). There were 68 right eyes and 20 left eyes, with a spherical equivalent of -4.49 ± 2.39 D (from -9.88 to -0.50 D). A generalized linear mixed model showed that the order of interval did not show significant effect on IOP ( Conclusion: Both IOP and bIOP obtained from CST were stable across successive measurement. Although bIOP decreased slightly with 2-min and 30-s, the reduction was small and not clinically significant.
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.