Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38150029›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography devices, a Scheimpflug camera system and a ray-tracing aberrometer in the measurement of corneal power in patients with cataract.

Shan Ma, Rongyu Gao, Jing Sun, Jun Yang, Kai Wen, Xiteng Chen, Fangyu Zhao, Xinyan Xu, Fang Tian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Shan Ma *Tianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300380, China.
Rongyu Gao *Weifang Eye Hospital, National Key Clinical Specialty, Zhengda Guangming Eye Group, Weifang, 261000, China.
Jing SunTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300380, China.
Jun YangTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300380, China.
Kai WenTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300380, China.
Xiteng ChenTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300380, China.
Fangyu ZhaoTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300380, China.
Xinyan XuWeifang Eye Hospital, National Key Clinical Specialty, Zhengda Guangming Eye Group, Weifang, 261000, China. zczdgmykyy2353@163.com.
Fang TianTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300380, China. tianfang1216@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3153-2336

Funding

Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project TJYXZDXK-037A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the differences and similarities in the corneal curvature obtained by two swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) devices, Scheimpflug imaging system and one ray tracing aberrometer in patients with cataracts. Moreover, this study aimed to compare the differences in posterior corneal (PK), total corneal (TK) and true net power (TNP) measurements among the IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam.

methodsA total of 200 eyes of 200 patients (116 female, 58%) were enrolled in this study, with a mean age of 65.9 ± 9.5 years. The flattest (Kf), steepest (Ks), and mean cornal powers (Km), J

resultsThere were no significant differences between the IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam for any of the keratometry values. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the IOLMaster 700 and iTrace in evaluating J

conclusionsAlthough strong correlations and good agreement were found among the IOLMaster700, CASIA2, Pentacam and iTrace for Kf, Ks, Km and J

Indexed as

CataractTomography, Optical CoherenceAgedBiometryCorneaCorneal TopographyFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsAstigmatic vector analysisCASIA2Corneal curvatureIOLMaster 700iTracePentacam

Identifiers

PMID38150029
PMCPMC11031469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.