SynthesisIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison meta-analysis of two swept-source optical coherence biometers.
Synthesis in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
- Comparative Analysis of Anterior Segment Biometry: Agreement and Correlation between Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug-Based Platforms.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2026Article
- Systematic Differences in Corneal Curvature and Power Measurements Between the IOLMaster 700 and the Anterion and Mapping Strategies for Cross-Device Use.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Concordance of Cataract Biometry Measurements Obtained via Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Optical Biometry.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparability of two swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometers, Anterion and IOLMaster 700. This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed articles published until October 1, 2023. Eligibility criteria included a comparative study design, absence of ocular diseases except cataract or refractive errors, same day measurements with both devices, and outcomes such as axial length (AL), mean keratometry, astigmatism vectors, anterior chamber depth (ACD), central corneal thickness, lens thickness (LT), corneal diameter, white-to-white (WTW), and intraocular lens (IOL) power for emmetropia. This systematic review incorporated 17 studies (2943 eyes). The mean difference of AL measurements obtained with Anterion and IOLMaster 700 was -0.01 [-0.09; 0.06]. Anterion provided a significantly larger ACD (0.10 mm [0.08-0.12 mm]) and LT (0.04 mm [0.01; 0.07]), while IOLMaster 700 had significantly larger WTW measurements (0.20 mm [-0.24; -0.16]). Corneal measurements tend to be flatter for Anterion, although no significant differences were found between devices. In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in WTW, LT, and ACD measurements between devices. AL measurements were comparable between biometers. Anterior mean and steep and flat keratometry tend to be higher with IOLMaster700. These differences may result in a higher IOL power for emmetropia when data are entered from Anterion measurements. Future studies will be needed to establish the influence of these differences on the refractive predictability of IOL power calculation.
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.