ArticleJournal of optometry
Agreement between Pentacam and handheld Auto-Refractor/Keratometer for keratometry measurement.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A quasi-experimental design study on myopia preventive intervention based on the MMHEM health promotion model.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Measuring the agreement of keratometry readings of four devices in eyes with keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Agreement between Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers and a Partial Coherence Interferometer.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2022Article
- Agreement of keratometric readings measured using rotating Scheimpflug imaging, auto-refractokeratometer, and biograph in eyes with keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Agreement analysis.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was conducted to evaluate the level of agreement in keratometry measurements between a rotating Scheimpflug imaging-based system (Pentacam) and a handheld auto-refractokeratometer (handheld NIDEK ARK-30).
methodThis analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in the right eyes of 579 subjects. Keratometry measurements were conducted with the Pentacam and the handheld NIDEK ARK-30 systems. The SPSS Software version 22 and MedCalc V3 were applied to estimate descriptive statistics using paired t-test, Pearson correlation coefficient, 95% limits of agreement (LoA), and Bland-Altman plot.
resultsIn the total sample, the inter-device difference in the mean flat and steep keratometry values was -0.266 diopter (D) (P-value<0.001) and 0.052D (P-value=0.093), respectively. There was a significant difference in mean flat keratometry between the two devices in all groups of refractive errors (paired difference <0.5D and P-value<0.001). The difference in mean steep keratometry was significant only in myopic subjects (P-value=0.046). The 95% LoA between the two devices measurements was 2.51D, 3.98D, and 6.37D for flat keratometry and 2.6D, 3.2D, and 3.9D for steep keratometry in emmetropic, myopic, and hyperopic subjects, respectively.
conclusionOur study showed relatively wide limits of agreement between handheld NIDEK ARK-30 and Pentacam; therefore, these devices cannot be used interchangeably for measuring corneal curvature.
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.