ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Comparison of keratometry data using handheld and table-mounted instruments in healthy adults.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare keratometry data between the handheld Retinomax K-plus 3 and the table-mounted IOLMaster 700.
methodsHealthy adult volunteers were prospectively recruited to the study. All participants underwent 3 consecutive keratometry measurements using the Retinomax K-plus 3 and a single biometry assessment using the IOLMaster 700. Differences between the Retinomax K-plus 3 and the IOLMaster 700 were assessed using Wilcoxon test for paired samples, Spearman correlation, Bland-Altman and mountain plots.
resultTwenty-eight healthy subjects with a median age of 37 years (interquartile range (IQR) 28-44 years) were included in the study. The median mean keratometry (mean K) reading was higher using the Retinomax K-plus 3 (44.04D; IQR 42.96-45.61D) compared to the IOLMaster 700 (43.78D; IQR 43.22-44.90D, p < 0.01), with a mean difference of 0.18D (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.23D). Mean K readings were highly correlated between the 2 devices (r = 0.995, p < 0.01). Bland-Altman plots showed 95% limits of agreement between -0.14D and 0.49D. Frequency histogram of mean K reading differences between the Retinomax K-plus 3 and the IOLMaster 700 showed that 56% of cases were between ± 0.2D, 93% of cases were between ± 0.4D and all cases were between ± 0.5D. Mean corneal astigmatism measurement was higher using the Retinomax K-plus 3 (1.01 ± 0.40D) compared to the IOLMaster 700 (0.77 ± 0.36D), with a mean difference of 0.23 ± 0.37D (p < 0.01) between the devices.
conclusionsA good agreement exists between the Retinomax K-plus 3 and the IOLMaster 700 regarding keratometry readings. This enables cataract surgeons to safely use the Retinomax K-plus 3 device when indicated.
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.