ArticleJournal of optometry
Comparison of the ocular ultrasonic and optical biometry devices in the different quality measurements.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal refractive changes following orbital decompression in thyroid eye disease: dominant role of axial configuration and globe position with contributions from surgical technique and corneal biomechanics.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2026Article
- Automatic segmentation of calibration device boundaries on ophthalmic optical biometry instruments in optical coherence tomography images.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of several toric intraocular lens calculators for predicting postoperative refractive astigmatism in cataract surgery: a real-world study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Intraocular lens calculation formula developed using artificial intelligence for ultrasonic biometry.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025Article
- Reply to Comment from Chaurasiya et al. on: Comparison of the ocular ultrasonic and optical biometry devices in different quality measurements.Journal of optometryArticle
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 the reliability and agreement of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and lens thickness (LT) measurements obtained with optical biometry based on swept-source optical coherence tomography (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss, Germany) and an ultrasound biometry device (Nidek; US-4000 Echoscan, Japan) in different qualities of AL measurement.
methodsA total of 239 consecutive eyes of 239 cataract surgery candidates with a mean age of 56 ± 14 years were included. The quality measurements were grouped according to the quartiles of SD of the measured AL by IOLMaster 700. The first and fourth quartile's SD are defined as high and low-quality measurement, respectively, and the second and third quartiles' SD is defined as moderate-quality.
resultsThe reliability of AL and ACD between the two devices in all patients and in different quality measurement groups was excellent with highly statistically significant (AL: all ICC=0.999 and P<0.001, ACD: all ICC>0.920 and P<0.001). AL and ACD in all quality measurements showed a very strong correlation between devices with highly statistically significant. However, there was poor (ICC=0.305), moderate (ICC=0.742), and good (ICC=0.843) reliability in measuring LT in low-, moderate-, and high-quality measurements, respectively. LT showed a very strong correlation (r = 0.854) with highly statistically significant (P<0.001) between devices only in patients with high-quality measurements.
conclusionsAL and ACD of the IOLMaster700 had outstanding agreements with the US-4000 ultrasound in different quality measurements of AL and can be used interchangeably. But LT should be used interchangeably cautiously only in the high-quality measurements group.
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.