Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Different keratoconus definitions can lead to substantial prevalence disparities in population-based studies
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Different keratoconus definitions can lead to substantial prevalence disparities in population-based studies
Do you wish to request the book?
Different keratoconus definitions can lead to substantial prevalence disparities in population-based studies
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Different keratoconus definitions can lead to substantial prevalence disparities in population-based studies
2025
Overview
This report explores the prevalence of keratoconus in a population-based cohort of adults aged 40 or older according to ten different definitions. All Rotterdam Study participants with reliable Pentacam scans and no prior corneal refractive surgery were cross-sectionally analysed (
n
= 2660). First, we applied a novel evidence-based definition. Suspected keratoconus was defined as having at least one eye with a final D-index (BAD-D) ≥ 2.6. Manifest keratoconus was defined as having at least one eye with: (1) BAD-D ≥ 2.6; and (2) a score of at least 4/10 on the novel Rotterdam Keratoconus Scale (RKS); and (3) a confirming assessment of the relevant Pentacam maps; and (4) meeting Holladay’s criteria in case of recent contact lens usage. Using this proposed definition, 72 participants (2.71%, 95%CI: 2.16–3.40%) had suspected keratoconus, while 10 participants (0.38%, 95%CI: 0.20–0.69%) had manifest keratoconus. To assess reproducibility, two specialists independently applied the proposed definition, with a substantial inter-observer agreement (Kappa = 0.74). Interestingly, 6(60%) patients were unaware of having keratoconus. Applying nine alternative definitions from similar screening studies produced prevalence estimates ranging from 0.19 to 9.29% in the same cohort. Moreover, counting solely on a BAD-D cutoff of 2.6 to define keratoconus was unreliable, with a low positive predictive value of 14%. These findings explain partially the large heterogeneity in the reported keratoconus prevalences, underscoring the need for a standardized definition.
