Trial reportBioMed research international2014
Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained by three different devices in healthy eyes.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of keratometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image Guided System with optical biometry and auto-keratorefractometer.International ophthalmology · 2017Trial
- A Novel Method for Analysing the Curvature of the Anterior Lens: Multi-Radial Scheimpflug Imaging and Custom Conic Fitting Algorithm.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Comparison of keratometric values and anterior segment parameters measured using Scheimpflug Sirius topography and Lenstar biometry.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Disruption ofHuman mutation · 2024Article
- Effect of orthokeratology on precision and agreement assessment of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2020Article
- Repeatability of ocular biometry with IOLMaster 700 in subjects with clear lens.International ophthalmology · 2017Observational
- Comparison of the biometric measurements calculated with Zeiss IOL-Master and WaveLight OB-820.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
- Intrapersonal comparison of initial axial length, keratometric readings, and intraocular lens power over a 6-month interval using an IOLMaster device.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Article
- Influence of upper blepharoplasty on intraocular lens calculation.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaObservational
- Single session, intrauser repeatability of anterior chamber biometric and corneal pachy-volumetric parameters using a new Scheimpflug+Placido device.Journal of optometryObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the normal values and the repeatability of the Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer (GDSA), the biometer IOL Master, and the autokerato/refractometer WAM 5500 in anterior segment examinations.
methodsEighty-eight eyes from 88 healthy volunteers were prospectively and consecutively recruited. The repeatability was assessed, calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsThe correlations among the repeated measurements showed nearly perfect reliability (ICC > 0.81) for all of the parameters, except corneal astigmatism Galilei (0.79) and WAM (0.68). There were statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) between the values of the flat simulated keratometry (SimK) and the steep SimK measured by GDSA and the other methods; however, there were no statistically significant differences for the values obtained with the IOL Master and WAM 5500 (P = 0.302 and P = 0.172, resp.) or between the values of the ACD (P < 0.001) and WTW (P = 0.007) measured by the IOL Master and GDSA.
conclusionsThe anterior segment measurements from the IOL Master and WAM 5500 were highly repeatable, comparable, and well correlated. In healthy young persons, the evaluated parameters had very good repeatability, although significant differences were found between the GDSA and IOL Master and between the GDSA and WAM 5500.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.