ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2023
Comparison of corneal aberrations from anterior segment swept source OCT versus Placido-topography combined spectral domain OCT in cataract patients.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing postoperative reading performance and visual outcomes of a non-diffractive EDOF-IOL versus a monofocal IOL: a randomized controlled eye movement study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Trial
- Change in monochromatic aberrations with accommodation in a large adult population.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Repeatability assessment of anterior segment measurements in myopic patients using an anterior segment OCT with placido corneal topography and agreement with a swept-source OCT.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
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
backgroundTo comprehensively evaluate the agreement of component corneal aberrations from the newly updated wavefront analysis software of a swept-source optical coherence tomographer (SS-OCT) and a referential Placido-topography combined OCT device in elderly cataract patients.
methodsRetrospective study including 103 eyes from 103 elderly patients scheduled for cataract surgery that were measured on the same day with a SS-OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) device and a Placido-topography combined OCT device (CSO, Italy). Anterior, total, and posterior corneal wavefront aberrations were evaluated for their mean differences and limits of agreement (LoA) via Bland-Altman plots. Vector analysis was additionally employed to compare corneal astigmatism measurements in dioptric vector space.
resultsMean differences of all corneal aberrometric parameters did not exceed 0.05 μm. Total corneal aberrations were not significantly different from 0 except for vertical coma (- 0.04 μm; P = 0.003), spherical aberration (- 0.01 μm, P < 0.001), and root mean square (RMS) higher-order aberration (HOA) (0.03 μm, P = 0.04). The 95% LoA for total corneal aberration parameters between both devices were - 0.46 to 0.42 μm for horizontal astigmatism, - 0.37 to 0.41 μm for oblique astigmatism, - 0.19 to 0.17 μm for oblique trefoil, - 0.33 to 0.25 μm for vertical coma, - 0.20 to 0.22 μm for horizontal coma, - 0.22 to 0.20 μm for horizontal trefoil, - 0.11 to 0.08 μm for spherical aberration, and - 0.22 to 0.28 μm for RMS HOA. Vector analysis revealed no statistically significant mean differences for anterior, total, and posterior corneal astigmatism in dioptric vector space.
conclusionIn eyes undergoing cataract surgery with a regular elderly cornea, corneal wavefront analysis from the SS-OCT device showed functional equivalency to the reference device. Nevertheless, clinically relevant higher order aberration parameters should be interpreted with caution for surgical decision-making.
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.