Keratometric indices for detecting the type of keratoconus: a combined discriminant analysis

REFERENCES

• Miraftab M, Fotouhi A, Hashemi H et al. A modified risk assessment scoring system for post laser in situ keratomileusis ectasia in topographically normal patients. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2014; 9: 434–438.
   Google Scholar
• Randleman JB, Russell B, Ward MA et al. Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 267–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naderan M, Shoar S, Kamaleddin MA et al. Keratoconus clinical findings according to different classifications. Cornea 2015; 34: 1005–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdi AC, Nguyen V, Gore DM et al. Keratoconus natural progression: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of 11 529 eyes. Ophthalmology 2019; 126: 933–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.02.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashemi H, Miraftab M, Seyedian MA et al. Long‐term results of an accelerated corneal cross‐linking protocol (18 mW/cm2) for the treatment of progressive keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2015; 160: 1164–1170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmund C. Posterior corneal curvature and its influence on corneal dioptric power. Acta Ophthalmol 1994; 72: 715–720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomidokoro A, Oshika T, Amano S et al. Changes in anterior and posterior corneal curvatures in keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1328–1332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silas MR, Hilkert SM, Reidy JJ et al. Posterior keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol 2018; 102: 863–867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krachmer JH, Rodrigues MM. Posterior keratoconus. Arch Ophthalmol 1978; 96: 1867–1873.
   Google Scholar
• Belin MW, Duncan JK. Keratoconus: the ABCD grading system. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2016; 233: 701–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huseynli S, Abdulaliyeva F. Evaluation of Scheimpflug tomography parameters in subclinical keratoconus, clinical keratoconus, and normal Caucasian eyes. Turk Oftalmol Derg 2018; 48: 99–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahba SS, Roshdy MM. Rotating Scheimpflug imaging indices in different grades of keratoconus. J Ophthalmol 2016; 2016: 6392472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K. KISA% index: a quantitative videokeratography algorithm embodying minimal topographic criteria for diagnosing keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 1327–1335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrosio R Jr, Caiado AL, Guerra FP et al. Novel pachymetric parameters based on corneal tomography for diagnosing keratoconus. J Refract Surg 2011; 27: 753–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns DM, Johnston FM, Frazer DG et al. Keratoconus: an analysis of corneal asymmetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 1252–1255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villavicencio GF, Henriquez MA, Izquierdo L Jr et al. Independent population validation of the Belin/Ambrosio enhanced ectasia display: implications for keratoconus studies and screening. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2014; 3: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Naderan M, Jahanrad A, Balali S. Histopathologic findings of keratoconus corneas underwent penetrating keratoplasty according to topographic measurements and keratoconus severity. Int J Ophthalmol 2017; 10: 1640–1646.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delong ER, Delong DM, Clarke‐pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond GA. What price perfection? Calibration and discrimination of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 85–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amsler M. Kératocõne classique et kératocône fruste; arguments unitaires. Ophthalmologica 1946; 111: 96–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JA, Kim MS. Progression of keratoconus by longitudinal assessment with corneal topography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 927–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maguire LJ, Lowry JC. Identifying progression of subclinical keratoconus by serial topography analysis. Am J Ophthalmol 1991; 112: 41–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamiya K, Ishii R, Shimizu K et al. Evaluation of corneal elevation, pachymetry and keratometry in keratoconic eyes with respect to the stage of Amsler‐Krumeich classification. Br J Ophthalmol 2014; 98: 459–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G. Revisiting keratoconus diagnosis and progression classification based on evaluation of corneal asymmetry indices, derived from Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and suspect cases. Clin Ophthalmol 2013; 7: 1539–1548.
   Google Scholar
• Li X, Yang H, Rabinowitz YS. Longitudinal study of keratoconus progression. Exp Eye Res 2007; 85: 502–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta N, Trindade BL, Hooshmand J et al. Variation in the best fit sphere radius of curvature as a test to detect keratoconus progression on a scheimpflug‐based corneal tomographer. J Refract Surg 2018; 34: 260–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez‐escudero A, Dorronsoro C, Marcos S. Correlation between radius and asphericity in surfaces fitted by conics. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2010; 27: 1541–1548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis WR, Raasch TW, Mitchell GL et al. Corneal asphericity and apical curvature in children: a cross‐sectional and longitudinal evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 1899–1906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Wang J, Niu W et al. Corneal asphericity and its related factors in 1052 Chinese subjects. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 1232–1239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubbelman M, Weeber HA, Van der heijde RG et al. Radius and asphericity of the posterior corneal surface determined by corrected Scheimpflug photography. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002; 80: 379–383.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar