ArticleScientific reports2026
Agreement between Scheimpflug-based optical biometer with partial coherence interferometry in patients with keratoconus.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to assess the agreement between the Pentacam AXL and IOL Master 500 in measuring biometric components and intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients with keratoconus (KCN). In this cross-sectional study, individuals aged over 60 years were randomly selected from 22 districts in Tehran. Inclusion criteria were individuals over 60 years of age, the absence of ocular pathologies aside from KCN and cataracts, no prior ocular surgeries, and no systemic diseases. Optical biometry was conducted for each eye utilizing both the Pentacam AXL and IOL Master 500 devices, with IOL power determined through six formulas: Kane keratoconus, Barret universal 2, Holladay 1, Haigis, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T, based on the biometric data acquired from each device. The agreement between the biometric measurements from the two devices and the calculated IOL powers was analyzed using the Bland-Altman method. A total of 121 eyes from 121 patients with keratoconus were examined in this study. Among these participants, 76 (62.8%) were female. The average age of the individuals was 67.66 ± 6.47 years. The 95% limits of agreement for axial length measurements, as well as K1, K2, ACD, and WTW, between the IOL Master 500 and the Pentacam AXL were recorded as -0.08 to 0.02, -1.28 to 0.79, -1.83 to 1.06, -0.16 to 0.34, and - 0.96 to 0.13, respectively. Among the six formulas utilized for calculating IOL power, a significant difference was observed between the two devices, with the Pentacam AXL consistently yielding higher power values. The most pronounced difference was noted with the Hoffer Q formula, which showed a variation of + 0.55 ± 0.92, whereas the Holladay 1 formula exhibited the least difference at + 0.34 ± 1.98. The 95% limits of agreement for IOL power calculations between the two devices, based on the Kane keratoconus, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal 2, Holladay 1, and Haigis formulas, were recorded as -1.14 to 2.00, -1.16 to 2.00, -1.25 to 2.37, -1.06 to 2.12, -1.20 to 2.21, and -1.01 to 2.23 respectively. The Pentacam AXL and IOL Master 500 demonstrate a good agreement in their axial length measurements. Nonetheless, discrepancies in keratometry, anterior chamber depth, and white-to-white measurements between the two devices result in variations in IOL power calculations. Additionally, the choice of formula utilized for these calculations further influences the determined power, with values obtained from the Pentacam AXL in conjunction with the Kane keratoconus formula yielding higher power estimates.
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.