ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2023
Repeatability of a fully automated swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer and agreement with a low coherence reflectometry biometer.
Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evaluation of a new fully automated biometer integrating optical low-coherence reflectometry and Placido-disk topography.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of axial length measurement and other biometric parameters using three different generations of biometers.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measurements from Two Swept-Source OCT Devices: Eyestar 900 vs. Anterion.Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2025Article
- Agreement in Biometric Parameters Between Swept-Source-Optical Coherence Tomography and Optical Low-Coherence Interferometry: Insights into Clinical Precision.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Refractive Predictive Accuracy in Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Comparative Study of Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Optical Low-Coherence Interferometry.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Axial length acquisition success rates and agreement of two swept-source optical biometers in eyes with dense cataracts.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Current Concepts and Recent Updates of Optical Biometry- A Comprehensive Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Prediction of refraction error after toric lens implantation with biometric input data uncertainties and power labelling tolerances.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the repeatability of a fully automated swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and its agreement with an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) for several biometric parameters.
methodsIn this study, 74 eyes of 74 patients were measured using the Eyestar 900 SS-OCT and Lenstar LS 900 OLCR. Flat keratometry (K1) and steep keratometry (K2), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and axial length (AL) were measured three times with each device. The repeatability was analyzed with the intrasubject standard deviation, coefficient of variability (CoV), and coefficient of repeatability (CoR) for each instrument. The agreement between the instruments was evaluated with Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsK1, K2 and CCT CoV values were < 0.2%, < 0.4% and < 0.55%, respectively. Higher CoV values were found for ACD and LT ranging from 0.56% to 1.74%. The lowest CoV values were found for the AL measurements (0.03% and 0.06% for the Eyestar 900 and the Lenstar LS 900, respectively). AL measurements provided the highest repeatability, measured with both CoV and CoR values, and the CCT was the parameter with the lowest repeatability. The CCT and LT measurements were statistically significant between the two biometers (P < 0.001). The interval of the limits of agreement was < 0.6 D for K1 and K2, 15.78 µm for CCT, 0.21 mm for ACD, 0.34 mm for LT, and 0.08 mm for AL.
conclusionsBoth biometers provide repeatable measurements for the different parameters analyzed and can be used interchangeably.
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.