ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of three biometric devices: ocular parameters and calculated intraocular lens power.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming Eye-Care Diagnostics Through Artificial Intelligence, Biometric Evaluation, and Tele-Optometry.Cureus · 2026Review
- Interdevice Agreement of Keratometry, Astigmatism Vectors, and Ocular Biometry in Cataract Candidates: SS-OCT (Argos) vs. OLCI (Aladdin) vs. Scheimpflug-Placido (Sirius).Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Comparative Evaluation of Two New-Generation Optical Biometers: Intrasession Repeatability and Agreement of Biometric Parameters.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of axial length measurement and other biometric parameters using three different generations of biometers.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of the accuracy of toric IOL power in cataract eyes with irregular astigmatism using two keratometry devices.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Relative peripheral refraction with accommodation in 6- to 11-year-olds: baseline findings from the Stockholm Myopia Study.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measurements from Two Swept-Source OCT Devices: Eyestar 900 vs. Anterion.Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2025Article
- Repeatability and reproducibility of a new spectral-domain optical coherence tomography biometer and agreement with swept-source optical coherence tomography based biometer.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of repeatability and agreement of two optical biometers for intraocular lens power calculation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of corneal measurements in keratoconus eyes with two swept-source-optical coherence tomography devices and a Scheimpflug device.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Axial length acquisition success rates and agreement of two swept-source optical biometers in eyes with dense cataracts.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Repeatability of a fully automated swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer and agreement with a low coherence reflectometry biometer.Eye and vision (London, England) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cataract surgery is among the most common medical procedures, and accurate ocular biometry measurements are key for successful visual outcome. The current study evaluated data obtained by the Eyestar 900, Anterion, IOLMaster700 biometers and the Pentacam corneal topographer. Compared values were axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), steep- and flat-K, cylinder and axis. Clinical impact was assessed by calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power using the mean values of every parameter and the Barrett and Kane formulas, stratified by device and amount of cylinder. IOL was re-calculated for each device substituting Pentacam K-values. This study included 196 eyes (98 participants) of cataract surgery candidates. When comparing the IOLMaster to the Eyestar (157 eyes), no difference was found in mean AL or ACD measurements (P > 0.05). Steep-K measurements differed between these devices and the Pentacam (P = 0.01). AL and ACD measurements differed between the IOLMaster and Anterion (38 eyes; P < 0.05). Strong correlations (range 0.72-0.99) were found between all four devices. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated excellent agreement between biometry devices other than ACD between the IOLMaster and Eyestar. Calculated IOL power was 0.50-1.00 diopter (D) lower with the IOLMaster. Cylinder power was 0.75D higher in all biometers when Pentacam K-values were substituted.
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.