ArticlePeerJ2025
Repeatability and reproducibility of Keratograph 5M corneal topography.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Corneal topography is an important diagnostic tool and highly repeatable and reproducible topographic devices are essential in eye care practice. Placido disc-based topography is one of the most widely used methods because of its high resolution and accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyse the intrasession repeatability and intersession reproducibility of measurements obtained with a Keratograph 5M in a sample of healthy subjects. Methods: Three consecutive measurements were performed with a Keratograph 5M during two sessions in 24 healthy subjects to calculate the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), repeatability and reproducibility limits, coefficient of variation (CoV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of corneal curvature (K1, K2 and Max-K), eccentricity, corneal diameter, and corneal aberration (6-mm pupil; coma, trefoil, spherical aberration, secondary astigmatism and quadrafoil). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the three measurements in either session ( Conclusions: The Keratograph 5M demonstrated excellent repeatability and reproducibility in measuring corneal curvature and corneal diameter in healthy subjects. Corneal eccentricity shows moderate accuracy, whereas corneal aberrations (except coma, trefoil, and spherical aberrations) exhibit moderate measurement reliability and should be interpreted with caution in clinical practice.
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.