Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34019547›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Repeatability and agreement of biometric measurements using spectral domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug tomography in keratoconus.

Ye Li, Akilesh Gokul, Charles McGhee, Mohammed Ziaei

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Repeatability and agreement of two ocular biometers with single and dual Scheimpflug cameras in keratoconus eyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ye LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-4585-956X
Akilesh GokulDepartment of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Charles McGheeDepartment of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mohammed ZiaeiDepartment of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the repeatability and agreement in biometric measurements using Spectral Domain Anterior Segment OCT (AS-OCT, REVO-NX, Optopol) and Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam-AXL, Oculus) in keratoconus.

methodsProspective case series at a university hospital tertiary center. Axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), central corneal thickness (CCT), and thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) were measured using both devices in patients with keratoconus. Three groups were analyzed: eyes with no prior crosslinking or contact lens wear (Group A), eyes with prior crosslinking (Group B), and eyes with prior contact lens wear (Group C). Repeatability and agreement of measurements were analyzed.

resultsThe study comprised of 214 eyes of 157 subjects. In Group A (n = 95 eyes), Group B (n = 86 eyes), and Group C (n = 33 eyes), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was higher than 0.90 for all examined parameters, except for ACD readings in Group A with the REVO-NX (ICC = 0.83). Differences in ACD, TCT, and CCT were significantly different between the two devices for Groups A, B and C (p<0.05). AL measurements differed significantly in Groups A and B (p<0.05) but not in Group C (p = 0.18). Repeatability did not vary significantly between Groups A, B, or C in any parameter with both devices (p>0.05). There was poor agreement between the two devices across all parameters (p<0.05).

conclusionsBoth devices demonstrated good repeatability but poor agreement across AL, ACD, CCT and TCT measurements. There was no significant difference in repeatability in virgin eyes compared to eyes with prior crosslinking or contact lens wear, however, the interchangeable use of the two devices is not recommended.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBiometric IdentificationChildFemaleHumansKeratoconusMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID34019547
PMCPMC8139453
OpenAlexW3163028156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.