2020
DOI: 10.5336/medsci.2019-72509
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking Effect the Repeatability and Reliability of Scheimpflug Imaging in Keratoconus?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

2
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with this present study, the repeatability of corneal thickness measurements were found to be high both in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileuses and keratoconus eyes [1]. Recently, Cicek et al reported that higher limits of repeatability in K1, K2 and Kmax values in keratoconus patients after cross-linking treatment with Pentacam [18]. However, all computed corneal topography parameter ICCs were reported to have over 0.95 both in CXL and naïve keratoconus patients in the same report [18].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consistent with this present study, the repeatability of corneal thickness measurements were found to be high both in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileuses and keratoconus eyes [1]. Recently, Cicek et al reported that higher limits of repeatability in K1, K2 and Kmax values in keratoconus patients after cross-linking treatment with Pentacam [18]. However, all computed corneal topography parameter ICCs were reported to have over 0.95 both in CXL and naïve keratoconus patients in the same report [18].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Recently, Cicek et al reported that higher limits of repeatability in K1, K2 and Kmax values in keratoconus patients after cross-linking treatment with Pentacam [18]. However, all computed corneal topography parameter ICCs were reported to have over 0.95 both in CXL and naïve keratoconus patients in the same report [18]. These results were also parallel to this current study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%