ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research2025
Comparative Assessment of Corneal Imaging Devices for Pediatric Patients: Evaluating Keratometric Measurements and Wavefront Aberrations.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the intrasession repeatability and agreement in keratometric and wavefront measurements among three different instruments (Pentacam HR, Nidek OPD-Scan III [OPD], and Zeiss i-Profiler Methods: This cross-sectional study included 217 eyes from 114 patients aged 6 to 17 years with different clinical features. The patients were divided into five groups: one control group (C) and four other groups, each presenting with keratoconus (KC), ocular allergy (OA), high astigmatism, or Down syndrome (DS). Statistical analyses included the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for repeatability and Bland-Altman plots for agreement. Results: The findings demonstrated excellent repeatability of keratometric parameters across all devices (e.g., K1 ICC: 99.53% for Pentacam, 98.10% for OPD, and 98.31% for IPROF). The Pentacam showed superior repeatability for aberrometry indices in the KC group, with ICC values exceeding 98% for high-order aberration root mean square (HOA RMS) and Zernike polynomials. However, in the DS group, repeatability was significantly reduced for certain parameters, such as the index of surface variance (ICC: 40.13%) and HOA RMS (ICC: 42.86%). Bland-Altman plots revealed variations among devices in asphericity, vertical coma, and HOA RMS, with the KC group exhibiting broader limits of agreement compared to the control group. Conclusion: All three instruments showed good repeatability, with the Pentacam demonstrating superior reliability across all parameters, including aberrometry. However, agreement between devices was poor for key indices in patients with KC and DS.
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.