ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
A comparison of Scansys and Sirius tomography in healthy eyes.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. 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.
- Agreement between Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido tomography and Anterion swept-source OCT in keratoconic eyes stratified by prior corneal cross-linking: a retrospective cross-sectional agreement study.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Mean human corneal diameter and palpebral fissure lengths as scales for forensic analysis of photographed faces: an analytical review.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Prevalence of floppy eyelid syndrome and keratoconus in Egyptian patients with obstructive sleep apnea.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Agreement and potential for arithmetic adjustment of anterior segment measurements across IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and Sirius.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Parameter-Dependent Agreement and Proportional Bias Between a Domestically Developed Scheimpflug-Based Imaging System and Pentacam HR.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the level of agreement and evaluate the reliability of measurements between two Scheimpflug imaging modalities, Scansys (MediWorks, China) and Sirius (CSO, Italy), in quantifying the anterior segment parameters in healthy eyes.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study, the right eyes of 38 healthy participants without any ocular or systemic diseases were examined. A range of anterior segment parameters including anterior and posterior flat and steep keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber angle (ACA), corneal volume, anterior chamber volume, and horizontal white to white diameter, derived from the sagittal curvature maps were measured. To evaluate the reliability of the measurements, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and correlation coefficient were measured. Additionally, Bland-Altman plots were employed to examine the agreement in mean (bias line) and 95% limits of agreement between the two devices.
resultsThe mean age was 31.5 ± 6.9 (range: 19-47) years. The ICC indicated that the majority of anterior segment parameters had an excellent or good level of reliability, surpassing the threshold of 0.9. Nevertheless, CCT and ACA exhibited a moderate level of reliability, with ICC values of 0.794 and 0.728, respectively. The correlation analysis showed a strong correlation for all the variables tested. The Bland-Altman plots revealed that the bias line was near zero and the 95% limits of agreement were narrow for most variables, except for the anterior flat and steep keratometry, which were found to range from - 0.57 to 0.84 D and - 0.68 to 0.87 D, respectively.
conclusionScansys and Sirius devices can be effectively used interchangeably for the evaluation of most anterior segment parameters; however, for anterior corneal curvatures, CCT and ACA, their alternative use is not recommended.
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.