ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Anterion, MS-39, Pentacam, and Sirius in Corneal Assessment Prior to Refractive Surgery.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate corneal evaluation is crucial for determining candidacy for refractive surgery.Devices combining diverse technologies, such as Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam, Sirius), swept-source OCT (Anterion), and hybrid OCT/Placido systems (MS-39), offer distinct advantages and limitations in screening. Purpose: This study was conducted to compare corneal assessment with two Scheimpflug camera devices (Oculus Pentacam and CSO Sirius) and two spectral domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography devices (Heidelberg Engineering Anterion and CSO MS-39) in the preoperative screening of the cornea before refractive surgery. Methods: In this retrospective, consecutive case series, we enrolled 110 patients undergoing refractive surgery. Simulated keratometry (Sim-K), posterior keratometry (PK), central corneal thickness (CCT), keratometric astigmatism magnitude (KAM), Corneal diameter, Anterior chamber depth (ACD), and total corneal power (TCP) were compared using different instruments. To compare the mean values of the measurements, a repeated measures ANOVA was used. Results: Simulated keratometry (Sim-K), central corneal thickness (CCT), keratometric astigmatism magnitude (KAM), and total corneal power (TCP) showed a good agreement (ICC > 95%, ANOVA p > 0.05). Although posterior keratometry (PK) showed no significant differences, its Cronbach's alpha and ICC were low, indicating limited agreement. Corneal diameter showed moderate to poor ICC (p<0.001). Anterior chamber depth (ACD) showed the highest values when assessed with the Anterion; however, the results did not show a statistical significance (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both Scheimpflug camera devices and AS-OCT were suitable instruments for evaluating the cornea before refractive surgery. A strong correlation was seen for Sim-K, CCT, CD, and TCP; however, notable discrepancies were identified in posterior keratometry, astigmatism magnitude, and ACD. These findings underscore the importance of device-specific factors in assessing corneal and anterior segment measures during refractive surgery evaluations.
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.