ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2023
Comparison of 2 modern swept-source optical biometers-IOLMaster 700 and Anterion.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison meta-analysis of two swept-source optical coherence biometers.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Differences in Corneal Curvature and Power Measurements Between the IOLMaster 700 and the Anterion and Mapping Strategies for Cross-Device Use.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Early Real-World Clinical Outcomes and Astigmatism Vector Analysis of Toric Intraocular Lenses for High Astigmatism (≥2.0 D).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Agreement Between Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Devices in Assessing Glistening on the Intraocular Lens In Vivo.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Repeatability of biometric measures from the LenStar LS900 in a cataractous population.PloS one · 2025Article
- Astigmatism Management in Modern Cataract Surgery.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Repeatability of biometric measures from the IOLMaster 700 in a cataractous population.PloS one · 2024Article
- Prediction of corneal power vectors after cataract surgery with toric lens implantation-A vector analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Comparison of the ocular ultrasonic and optical biometry devices in the different quality measurements.Journal of optometryArticle
- Normative Values on Stromal Curvature, Power and Corneal-Stromal Curvature Ratios From a Hybrid AS-OCT.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare biometric measures from 2 modern swept-source OCT biometers (IOLMaster700 (Z, Carl-Zeiss-Meditec) and Anterion (H, Heidelberg Engineering)) and evaluate the effect of measurement differences on the resulting lens power (IOLP).
methodsBiometric measurements were made on a large study population with both instruments. We compared axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT) and corneal front and back surface curvature measurements. Corneal curvature was converted to power vectors and total power derived using the Gullstrand formula. A paraxial lens power calculation formula and a prediction for the IOL axial position according to the Castrop formula were used to estimate differences in IOLP targeting for emmetropia.
resultsThere were no systematic differences between measurements of AL (- 0.0146 ± 0.0286 mm) and LT (0.0383 ± 0.0595 mm), whereas CCT yielded lower (7.8 ± 6.6 µm) and ACD higher (0.1200 ± 0.0531 mm) values with H. With H, CCT was lower for thicker corneas. The mean corneal front surface radius did not differ (- 0.4 ± 41.6 µm), but the corneal back surface yielded a steeper radius (- 397.0 ± 74.6 µm) with H, giving lower mean total power (- 0.3469 ± 0.2689 dpt). The astigmatic vector components in 0°/90° and 45°/135° were the same between both instruments for the front/back surface or total power.
conclusionThe biometric measures used in standard formulae (AL, corneal front surface curvature/power) are consistent between instruments. However, modern formulae involving ACD, CCT or corneal back surface curvature may yield differences in IOLP, and therefore, formula constant optimisation customised to the biometer type is required.
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.