Evidence mapPaperPMID 25170249Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2014

Evaluation of the relationship between corneal biomechanic and HbA1C levels in type 2 diabetes patients.

Serpil Yazgan, Ugur Celik, Havva Kaldırım, Orhan Ayar, Ahmet Elbay, Veysel Aykut, Burcu Celik, Mehmet Taş

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Serpil YazganDepartment of Ophthalmology, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Ugur CelikDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gaziosmanpaşa Taksim Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Havva KaldırımDepartment of Ophthalmology, Bağcılar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Orhan AyarDepartment of Ophthalmology, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Ahmet ElbayDepartment of Ophthalmology, Pendik Government Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Veysel AykutDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gaziosmanpaşa Taksim Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Burcu CelikDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beyoglu Eye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mehmet TaşDepartment of Ophthalmology, Malatya State Hospital, Malatya, Turkey.
Bülent Ecevit University · TRGaziosmanpaşa Taksim Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRBağcılar Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRIstanbul Eye Hospital · TRMalatya Devlet Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the corneal biomechanical properties due to the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels using the ocular response analyzer (ORA) in the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

methodsORA values were obtained from 156 eyes of subjects with type 2 DM and 74 eyes of healthy control subjects with similar age and sex. Subjects were divided into three groups: Group 1, healthy control subjects; Group 2, diabetes patients with HbA1C <7%; and Group 3, diabetes patients with HbA1C ≥7%. Corneal biomechanical parameters: corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), Goldmann-correlated pressure (IOPg), and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) measurements were obtained using ORA. Ultrasound pachymetry was used for measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT).

resultsCH and CRF were significantly different in each of the three groups (P-values for CH respectively; Groups 1 and 2=0.008, Groups 1 and 3, and Groups 2 and 3, <0.001, and for CRF respectively; =0.002, <0.001, <0.001). CCT was significantly different between Groups 1 and 3 and Groups 2 and 3 (P<0.001) but was insignificant between Groups 1 and 2 (P=0.965). IOPcc was not different between Groups 1 and 2 (P=0.524), and Groups 2 and 3 (P=0.115), but was significantly different between Groups 1 and 3 (P=0.003). IOPg was statistically different between each of the three groups (respectively; Groups 1 and 2, P=0.015, Groups 1 and 3, and Groups 2 and 3, P<0.001).

conclusionBoth diabetes groups were affected in terms of corneal biomechanical properties when compared to healthy subjects, there was also a positive correlation between HbA1C level and intraocular pressure.

Indexed as

corneal biomechanical parametersHbA1Cintraocular pressureocular response analyzertype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID25170249
PMCPMC4145729
OpenAlexW2001149521

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.