The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Central Corneal Thickness and Thickness of the Lamina Cribrosa in Human Eyes
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since central corneal thickness may inversely influence the amount and rate of progression of glaucomatous optic nerve damage and because lamina cribrosa thickness may be of importance in susceptibility to glaucoma, it was the purpose of the present study to evaluate whether central corneal thickness is related to lamina cribrosa thickness. METHODS: The histomorphometric study included 111 enucleated nonglaucomatous eyes of 111 white subjects. On anterior-posterior histologic sections through the pupil and the central optic disc region, the thickness of the cornea, lamina cribrosa, and peripapillary sclera and the shortest distance between the intraocular space and the cerebrospinal fluid space were measured. Axial length ranged between 20 and 32 mm. RESULTS: Mean central corneal thickness (mean +/- SD: 616.6 +/- 108.3 microm) and mean central lamina cribrosa thickness (378.1 +/- 117.8 microm) were statistically independent of each other (P = 0.15; correlation coefficient, r = 0.14). In a similar manner, lamina cribrosa thickness at the optic disc border was statistically independent of central corneal thickness (P = 0.51; r = 0.06) and peripheral corneal thickness (P = 0.34; r = 0.09). In a parallel way, peripapillary scleral thickness (P = 0.84) and the shortest distance between the prelaminar space and cerebrospinal fluid space (P = 0.10) were statistically independent of central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: In nonglaucomatous human globes, central corneal thickness may not correlate significantly with lamina cribrosa thickness, peripapillary scleral thickness, and shortest distance between intraocular space and cerebrospinal fluid space. Histologic artifact and sectioning methods could partially account for the lack of an association. The study results may suggest clinically that an assumed relationship between central corneal thickness and susceptibility to glaucoma cannot be explained by an anatomic correspondence between corneal thickness and histomorphometry of the optic nerve head.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Jonas, J. B., Aung, T., Bourne, R. R., Bron, A. M., Ritch, R., & Panda-Jonas, S. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31469-1 · Cited by 1,322
Self-citationFactors Influencing Optic Nerve Head Biomechanics
Sigal, I. A., Flanagan, J. G., & Ethier, C. R. (2005) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.05-0541 · Cited by 507
Metadata
- Authors
- Jonas, J. B., & Holbach, L.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2005-04-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1275
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2085288497
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Central Corneal Thickness and Thickness of the Lamina Cribrosa in Human Eyes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.04-0851
- The paper
- Jonas, J. B., & Holbach, L. (2005). Central Corneal Thickness and Thickness of the Lamina Cribrosa in Human Eyes. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0851
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.