ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Comparison of Anterior Segment Parameters and Axial Length Using Two Scheimpflug Devices with Integrated Optical Biometers.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. 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.
- Article
- Repeatability of pupil diameter measurements using three different topography devices.PloS one · 2023Article
- Agreements' profile of Scheimpflug-based optical biometer with gold standard partial coherence interferometry.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Comparison of anterior corneal aberrations measured by Scheimpflug and Placido Disc System for myopes.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Observational
- Biometry and intraocular power calculation using a swept-source optical coherence tomography: A repeatability and agreement study.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- The repeatability and agreement of biometric measurements by dual Scheimpflug device with integrated optical biometer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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
purposeTo assess the repeatability of anterior segment parameters and axial length (AL) using Pentacam AXL and Galilei G6 and the agreement between both devices. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty-four eyes of 84 participants were measured prospectively with two devices. Outcome measurements included corneal curvatures, anterior chamber depth (ACD), AL, pupil size, and white-to-white distance (WTW). Intra-device repeatability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), within-subject standard deviation (Sw), test-re-test repeatability (TRT=2.77 Sw), and coefficient of variation (CoV). Agreement between two devices was analyzed using Bland-Altman plots.
resultsFor each device, the Sw of corneal curvatures, ACD, and AL were lower than 0.25 D, 0.04 mm, and 0.04 mm, respectively. The ICC was higher than 0.90 in all parameters measured by Pentacam AXL, whereas three parameters measured by Galilei G6 (steep meridian at anterior and posterior cornea, and pupil size) were lower than 0.90. Comparing to Galilei G6, Pentacam AXL led to significantly lower mean anterior cornea curvatures (Km) with the mean difference (95% level of agreement; LoA) of -0.12 D (-0.36, 0.12,
conclusionWe found good repeatability of corneal curvature, ACD, and AL in both devices. Most parameters obtained from Pentacam AXL were statistically significantly different from those obtained from Galilei G6, except for steep meridians and ACD.
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.