ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Comparative analysis of two optical biometry devices: high wavelength swept source OCT versus partial coherence interferometry.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of 2 modern swept-source optical biometers-IOLMaster 700 and Anterion.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo study the reproducibility of measurements performed with a recently developed multimodal high resolution swept source optical coherence tomography (SSOCT) and to make comparisons with a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) biometer.
methodsOne hundred and fifty-two eyes of 152 subjects were involved in this study with a mean age of 65.71 ± 13.86 years (26-85 years). Anterior surface keratometry (K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), white-to-white (WTW) and axial length (AL) values were recorded by the SSOCT (ANTERION, Heidelberg Engineering Ltd, Germany) and PCI (IOLMaster 500, version 5.5, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany). Intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated based on ANTERION and IOLMaster keratometry values by using five traditional vergence formulas.
resultsAnterior surface simulated keratometry values did not differ significantly between the IOLMaster and ANTERION (P > 0.05). AL measurements were successful in 95% of the cases both with the SSOCT and PCI. No significant difference was disclosed between the two instruments (P = 0.229). For WTW measurements, a significant difference was observed between the two optical biometers (P < 0.0001). The difference between PCI and SSOCT in IOL powers was statistically significant for SRK/T, Hoffer and Holladay formulas (P < 0.001).
conclusionOur results implicated an overall good reproducibility of anterior keratometry, AL, ACD and WTW measurements for IOLMaster and ANTERION. The discrepancies between their measurements resulted in significant difference in the calculated IOL power for SRK/T, Hoffer and Holladay formulas, but not for Haigis formula.
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.