ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024
Comparison of central corneal thickness measured by automatic and manual analysis of optical coherence tomography.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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 central corneal thickness (CCT) measured with optical coherence tomography (OCT) using an automatic algorithm (A-OCT) vs. manual measurements (M-OCT) with respect to the gold standard ultrasound pachymetry (USP).
methodsCCT measurements were performed on both eyes of 28 healthy subjects at four times of the day. A-OCT used an automatic software analysis of the corneal image, M-OCT was performed by two operators by setting a digital calliper on the corneal borders, and USP was performed after corneal anesthesia. Measurements were compared using a three-way repeated measures ANOVA. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between OCT measurements and USP.
resultsBoth A-OCT and M-OCT significantly underestimated the USP measures, with the mean difference, i.e., the systematic error, being larger for A-OCT (- 19.0 µm) than for M-OCT (- 6.5 µm). Good reproducibility between the two operators was observed. Bland-Altman plots showed that both OCT methods suffered from proportional errors, which were not affected by time and eye.
conclusionsMeasuring CCT with OCT yielded lower values than USP. Therefore, clinicians should be aware that corneal thickness values may be influenced by the measurement method and that the various devices should not be used interchangeably in following up a given patient. Intriguingly, M-OCT had less systematic error than A-OCT, an important outcome that clinicians should consider when deciding to use an OCT device.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38206413What 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.