2014
DOI: 10.5935/0004-2749.20140039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ocular biometry and central corneal thickness in children: a hospital-based study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A slow increase in central corneal thickness and ACD until 10 years of age was observed [ 35 , 37 ]. Our results, measuring CCT 539.21 ± 30.15 μm compare favorably with earlier studies of similar age groups [ 36 , 38 ], however, these published data are not within the emmetropic refractive range. In the Gutenberg Eye Study, mean CCT was 557.3 ± 34.3 μm in male and 551.6 ± 35.2 μm in female adult subjects (age range 35–74 years) [ 39 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…A slow increase in central corneal thickness and ACD until 10 years of age was observed [ 35 , 37 ]. Our results, measuring CCT 539.21 ± 30.15 μm compare favorably with earlier studies of similar age groups [ 36 , 38 ], however, these published data are not within the emmetropic refractive range. In the Gutenberg Eye Study, mean CCT was 557.3 ± 34.3 μm in male and 551.6 ± 35.2 μm in female adult subjects (age range 35–74 years) [ 39 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Although there was a significant difference among three subgroups regarding IOP, CDV, and LT values, this was not important clinically because these values were within the normal limits for their age group. 21,22 This study has also supported the previous publications reporting that intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy is an effective and favorable first-line treatment option in cases with treatment requiring ROP located at posterior zone, and the treatment effect also continued in the late period. However, there is still incomplete maturation of the retina after treatment.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…According to the comparison, there was no statistically significant difference regarding strabismus, AL, and refractive status among bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept subgroups ( P = 0.563). Although there were significant differences among three subgroups regarding IOP, CDV, and LT, all the values were within normal limits for the age groups, 21,22 and cataract was not detected in any patient during examinations.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some researchers believe that the increase or decrease in the corneal thickness with age is not a steady trend and may be unpredictable considering the lifestyle and environmental exposures 32 Table 4Comparison of mean central corneal thickness (CCT) values in different studies.Study year and countryAge group (year)Mean ± SD of CCT (μm)Measurement tools2014, Turkey 19 1–12556.00 (In 1–2 years old)555.00 (In 11–12 years old)Ultrasound biometry2016, Mexico 20 Under 20558.82 ± 37.39Ultrasonic pachymetry2016, Iran 21 6–13513.47 ± 33.88Specular microscopy2012, Turkey 22 5–18557.91 ± 34.26Ultrasonic pachymeter2011, Malaysia 23 8–16530.87 ± 30.79Specular microscopy2010, Italy 24 7–17570.61 ± 37.4 (In patients with growth defect)546.00 ± 24.9 (In healthy group)Hand held ultrasound pachymeter2009, Turkey 25 mean age: 10.3576.9 ± 41.8(In diabetes mellitus group)521.00 ± 16.6 (Control group)Ultrasound pachymeter2008, USA 26 10–18535.00 ± 35 (In African American)559.00 ± 38 (In white children)Contact ultrasound2002, Iran 27 14–19575.10 ± 44.50Orbscan II2012, Iran 28 6–18549.33 (95% CI: 546.59–552.07)LENSTAR/BioGraphCCT: Central corneal thickness.CI: Confidence intervals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%