ArticlePloS one2023
Repeatability of pupil diameter measurements using three different topography devices.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Anterior Segment Biometry: Agreement and Correlation between Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug-Based Platforms.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2026Article
- Pupil size measurements with two multifunctional devices based on different technologies and an infrared based pupillometer.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Near-infrared OCT imaging for the assessment of anisocoria.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Ocular biometry agreement among ZW-30, IOLMaster 700, and sirius in cataract patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of pupillometry in two scheimpflug-based measurement systems.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Efficacy of orthokeratology lens with the modified small treatment zone on myopia progression and visual quality: a randomized clinical trial.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2024Article
- Effect of corneal diameter on preoperative screening results for corneal refractive surgery.American journal of translational research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the intra- and inter-device repeatability of pupil diameter measurements using three different devices in patients prior to corneal refractive surgery.
methodsWe examined preoperative measurements from a total of 204 eyes (102 patients) scheduled for corneal refractive surgery at two private centers between July and December 2021. Three consecutive scans were performed with three different devices (Sirius anterior segment analyzer, Pentacam HR, IOLMaster 500) in the same session by the same examiner under standardized conditions. To assess the intra- and inter-device repeatability, we calculated the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and demonstrated results using Bland-Altman plots.
resultsThe measurement accuracy (intra-device repeatability) of Sirius and IOLMaster was comparable (ICC = 0.64 and 0.61, respectively), with almost no statistically significant differences. Sirius showed the highest measurement accuracy among the three devices. Pentacam measurements resulted in lower precision, with an ICC of 0.09. The agreement between the pairs of devices (inter-device repeatability) was low (wide LoA ranges, Table 5).
conclusionIn this study, the intra-device repeatability of Sirius and IOLMaster was higher than that of the Pentacam, although it did not achieve an optimal level across all three devices. The three devices examined cannot 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.