ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography biometry measurements with partial coherence interferometry optical biometry.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Early Real-World Clinical Outcomes and Astigmatism Vector Analysis of Toric Intraocular Lenses for High Astigmatism (≥2.0 D).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Agreement between a swept-source optical coherence tomography and dual Scheimpflug Placido analyser in healthy, keratoconus suspect and keratoconus eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 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
backgroundTo evaluate the ocular biometry agreement and prediction of postoperative refractive outcomes obtained using two swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometers: Anterion (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and Argos (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA).
methodsAmbispective analysis was conducted on 105 eyes at the Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, between June 2021 and March 2022. Biometric values were assessed using both devices before cataract surgery. Intraocular lens (IOL) power, mean arithmetic error (ME), and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated using the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formulas.
resultsAnterion showed statistically significantly greater axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), and lens thickness (LT) than Argos (p = 0.03, p < 0.001, and p = 0.032, respectively). There were no significant differences in measuring anterior chamber depth (ACD) (p > 0.05). Anterion showed flatter corneal curvature measurements than Argos (p < 0.001). The postoperative prediction errors differed for all three formulas (p < 0.001). Anterion results leaned towards a slightly myopic outcome due to hyperopic target refraction. In all three formulas, the MAE and percentage of eyes with a prediction error ≤ ± 0.5 D were not significantly different between the two devices.
conclusionAlthough the differences are not clinically significant, the measurements of AL, CCT, and LT obtained with Anterion were greater compared to those measured with Argos, while the keratometry (K) and corneal diameter (CD) values were smaller. Consequently, this resulted in a minor difference in refractive predictability, with Anterion showing a slight tendency toward more myopic refractive errors. However, there were no significant differences in MAE or the percentage of eyes within ± 0.5D.
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.