Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2017
Comparison of keratometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image Guided System with optical biometry and auto-keratorefractometer.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes After Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Arcuate Corneal Incisions versus Manual Incisions.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Image-guided lens extraction surgery: a systematic review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Review
- Consensus on the management of astigmatism in cataract surgery.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Article
- Comparison of biometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image-Guided System versus the auto-refracto-keratometer.International ophthalmology · 2018Observational
- Pseudophakic astigmatism reduction with femtosecond laser-assisted corneal arcuate incisions: a pilot study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
- Comparison of corneal power obtained from VERION image-guided surgery system and four other devices.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the keratometric measurements of Verion Image Guided System with an optical biometer (Zeiss IOLMaster 500, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and an automated keratorefractometer (AKR) (Topcon KR-8900, Topcon, Japan). In this prospective clinical trial, the right eyes of 52 patients with cataract were examined (mean age 62.25 ± 12.16 years). The measurements were taken by the three systems in a random order. Keratometric data, magnitude of astigmatism, and astigmatic axis measurements from all three instruments were compared. The results were evaluated using, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, and paired samples t tests. The mean flat/steep K of Verion, IOLMaster, and AKR were 43.22 ± 1.38D/44.23 ± 1.46D, 43.07 ± 1.26D/44.05 ± 1.34D, and 43.07 ± 1.31D/43.89 ± 1.42D, respectively. Flat K readings of Verion were higher than IOLMaster and AKR (p < 0.05 for both). Steep K readings were different for all three (p < 0.05). The magnitude of astigmatism by Verion and IOLMaster were 0.98 ± 0.65D and 0.98 ± 0.59D (p = 0.88). The mean astigmatism measured by the AKR was 0.82 ± 0.62D, less than the other two instruments (p < 0.001). Astigmatic axis measurements of Verion and AKR differed <10° in 38, between 10° and 20° in 5, and >20° in 9 eyes; the same difference was 30, 11, and 11 eyes, respectively, between Verion and IOLMaster. Although, keratometric and astigmatic results obtained from Verion were not completely interchangeable with IOLMaster and AKR, especially the agreement between Verion and IOLMaster was excellent with ICCs close to one. However, there were pronounced astigmatic axis measurement differences between three instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27271763What 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.