ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of repeatability and agreement of two optical biometers for intraocular lens power calculation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Comparative Evaluation of Two New-Generation Optical Biometers: Intrasession Repeatability and Agreement of Biometric Parameters.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Interocular agreement and differences of ocular growth in cataract patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measurements from Two Swept-Source OCT Devices: Eyestar 900 vs. Anterion.Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2025Article
- The refractive accuracy between topographic keratometry and biometric keratometry for extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens implantation.International journal of medical sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The repeatability of two biometers (Lenstar-LS900 and Eyestar-900) to measure ocular parameters and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation, and their agreement were evaluated. 134 eyes of 134 participants were measured thrice with each biometer. Axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT) and keratometry (K) were evaluated. The IOL power was calculated using different formulas. The repeatability limit (RLimit), the mean differences (MD) and the limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. The RLimits for all parameters were higher with Lenstar compared to Eyestar. RLimits were lower than 0.50 D except for Barrett Universal II (0.54 D) and Haigis (0.51 D) formulas with the Lenstar. Mean differences were lower than 0.01 mm for AL, ACD and LT, and lower than 0.03 D for K. MD ranged from 0 to 0.02 D for all formulas except for Barrett and Hill. When dividing the sample into subgroups (short, normal and long eyes), the MDs were similar for the IOL power and were lower than 0.03 D, except for the Barrett and Hill formulas. Both biometers provide repeatable biometry and IOL power calculations. The LoA interval for the IOL power calculation was between 0.75 and 1.50D, which was similar among the subgroups.
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.