Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35324603›Full record

ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparison of Anterior Corneal Aberrometry, Keratometry and Pupil Size with Scheimpflug Tomography and Ray Tracing Aberrometer.

Zahra Ashena, Sean Gallagher, Hasan Naveed, David J Spalton, Mayank A Nanavaty

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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 24% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography devices, a Scheimpflug camera system and a ray-tracing aberrometer in the measurement of corneal power in patients with cataract.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Toric intraocular lenses: Evidence-based use.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2022
    Review
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zahra AshenaSussex Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton BN2 5BF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8005-4062
Sean GallagherSussex Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton BN2 5BF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1323-5189
Hasan NaveedSussex Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton BN2 5BF, UK.
David J SpaltonLife Science and Medicine Department, Kings College, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Mayank A NanavatySussex Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton BN2 5BF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0667-3700
Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust · GBSussex Eye Hospital · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the anterior corneal wavefront aberrations, keratometry, astigmatism vectors and pupil size between Pentacam HR® (Oculus Optikgeraete GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) and iTrace® (Tracey Technologies Corp., Houston, TX, USA). In this observational study, 100 eyes (50 healthy volunteers) were scanned in mesopic light condition with a Pentacam HR® and iTrace®. Anterior corneal aberrations (spherical aberration (Z40), vertical coma (Z3 − 1), horizontal coma (Z3 + 1)), keratometry in the flattest (K1) and steepest meridian (K2), mean astigmatism, astigmatic vectors (J0 and J45), and pupil size were measured. We found a significant difference in Z40 (Pentacam®: +0.30 ± 0.11 µm and iTrace®: −0.03 µm ± 0.05 µm; p < 0.01) with no correlation between the devices (r = −0.12, p = 0.22). The devices were in complete agreement for Z3 − 1 (p = 0.78) and Z3 + 1 (p = 0.39), with significant correlation between the machines (r = −0.38, p < 0.01 and r = −0.6, p < 0.01). There was no difference in K1, K2 and mean astigmatism. J0 was negative with both devices (against-the-rule astigmatism), but there was no correlation. J45 was negative with the Pentacam HR® (more myopic oblique astigmatism) but significantly correlated between the devices. Pupil size was smaller with Pentacam HR® (p < 0.01). In summary, these devices cannot be used interchangeably. Corneal Z40 was significantly different with more negative Z40 with iTrace® compared to Pentacam HR®. iTrace® operates with lower illumination, giving larger pupil size than Pentacam HR®, which uses intense blue light during measurement. No correlation was found for J0. Pentacam HR® had a trend to record more negative J45 (myopic oblique astigmatism).

Indexed as

aberrometrykeratometryray tracingScheimpflugtomography

Identifiers

PMID35324603
PMCPMC8951144
OpenAlexW4220677880

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.