See the published version of this article at BMC Ophthalmology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
GRACIA CASTRO-LUNA
Universidad de Almería
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6928-9728
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
Background To describe the topographic, pachymetric and aberrometry characteristics in patients with keratoconus, subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste and normal corneas. Calculate a diagnostic model of subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste.
Methods The design was a cross-sectional study. It included 205 eyes from 188 patients distributed in 82 normal corneas, 40 subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste and 83 established keratoconus The topographic, pachymetric and aberrometry variables obtained by rotary Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam® type) were analyzed. A descriptive and bivariate analysis of the recorded data was performed. A diagnostic model of subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste was calculated.
Results Statistically significant differences were obtained when comparing normal corneas with subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste in variables of vertical asymmetry and corneal thickness.The regression model was calculated with the minimum corneal thickness and the anterior coma to 90º and posterior coma to 90º.
Conclusions The diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste depends on the central corneal thickness, and two aberrometric topographic parameters the anterior coma to 90º and posterior coma to 90º.
Keywords
keratoconus, corneal topography, high order aberrations, coma
Figure 1
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Published
On 02 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 29 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 25 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 29 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 01 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Jan, 2020
Version 1
Posted 17 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 14 Jan, 2020
Editorial decision: Revise before sending to peer reviewers
On 14 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 13 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Ophthalmology
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Ophthalmology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
GRACIA CASTRO-LUNA
Universidad de Almería
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6928-9728
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Published
On 02 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 29 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 25 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 29 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 01 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Jan, 2020
Version 1
Posted 17 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 14 Jan, 2020
Editorial decision: Revise before sending to peer reviewers
On 14 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 13 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Ophthalmology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
Background To describe the topographic, pachymetric and aberrometry characteristics in patients with keratoconus, subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste and normal corneas. Calculate a diagnostic model of subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste.
Methods The design was a cross-sectional study. It included 205 eyes from 188 patients distributed in 82 normal corneas, 40 subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste and 83 established keratoconus The topographic, pachymetric and aberrometry variables obtained by rotary Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam® type) were analyzed. A descriptive and bivariate analysis of the recorded data was performed. A diagnostic model of subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste was calculated.
Results Statistically significant differences were obtained when comparing normal corneas with subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste in variables of vertical asymmetry and corneal thickness.The regression model was calculated with the minimum corneal thickness and the anterior coma to 90º and posterior coma to 90º.
Conclusions The diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus/forme fruste depends on the central corneal thickness, and two aberrometric topographic parameters the anterior coma to 90º and posterior coma to 90º.
Figure 1
Loading...