ArticleTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
Inter-device measurement variability of vital data parameters for keratorefractive and cataract refractive surgery.
Article in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mean human corneal diameter and palpebral fissure lengths as scales for forensic analysis of photographed faces: an analytical review.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Agreement between a new fully automatic ocular biometer based on optical low-coherence reflectometry and an optical biometer based on Scheimpflug imaging combined with partial coherence interferometry.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
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
introductionThe measurements of corneal white-to-white (WTW) diameter and pupil size are critical for decision making in refractive surgery. Currently, automatic measurement of keratometry, corneal WTW, and pupil size are implemented in several ocular devices. The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between two commonly used devices, an autorefractor and an optical biometer, for these parameters.
methodsMeasurements were performed with both a Lenstar LS-900 and Nidek ARK-1 by an experienced examiner in random order. The devices were placed in close proximity within the same dimly lit room.
resultsThe measurements of 65 right eyes were analyzed. The results of the flat, steep, and mean keratometric reading were not significantly different (
conclusionWe found a significant difference in WTW and pupil size measurements between ARK-1 and Lenstar. Results for both of the devices cannot be considered interchangeable for these data parameters.
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.