Evidence Hub

Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection

Ambrósio R, Lopes BT, Faria-Correia F, Salomão MQ, Bühren J, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R et al.

Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995), 2017

480 participants · 388 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To present the Tomographic and Biomechanical Index (TBI), which combines Scheimpflugbased corneal tomography and biomechanics for enhancing ectasia detection.

METHODS

Patients from different continents were retrospectively studied. The normal group included 1 eye randomly selected from 480 patients with normal corneas and the keratoconus group included 1 eye randomly selected from 204 patients with keratoconus. There were two groups: 72 ectatic eyes with no surgery from 94 patients with very asymmetric ectasia (VAE-E group) and the fellow eyes of these patients with normal topography (VAE-NT group). Pentacam HR and Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) parameters were analyzed and combined using different artificial intelligence methods. The accuracies for detecting ectasia of the Belin/Ambrósio Deviation (BAD-D) and Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI) were compared to the TBI, considering the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs).

RESULTS

The random forest method with leave-one-out cross-validation (RF/LOOCV) provided the best artificial intelligence model. The AUROC for detecting ectasia (keratoconus, VAE-E, and VAE-NT groups) of the TBI was 0.996, which was statistically higher (DeLong et al., P < .001) than the BAD-D (0.956) and CBI (0.936). The TBI cut-off value of 0.79 provided 100% sensitivity for detecting clinical ectasia (keratoconus and VAE-E groups) with 100% specificity. The AUROCs for the TBI, BAD-D, and CBI were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 480 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free