ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparison of corneal thickness measured using the new Revo FC optical coherence tomographer and the pentacam Scheimpflug-based imaging system.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of White-to-White Measurements Between Pentacam and MS-39 and Their Relationship with Visual and Refractive Status.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography biometry measurements with partial coherence interferometry optical biometry.BMC ophthalmology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCorneal thickness is a key measurement in ophthalmology, playing a significant role in diagnosing and monitoring conditions such as keratoconus, corneal dystrophies, and glaucoma, as well as in the preoperative evaluation for refractive surgery and keratoplasty. This study aimed to compare corneal thickness measurements obtained using a Scheimpflug-based imaging system with a new optical coherence tomographer.
methodsThis prospective study enrolled Polish patients with healthy eyes. Measurements were performed using the two devices, the Oculus Pentacam and Optopol Revo FC, in a random sequence. The agreement between the devices was evaluated using correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman analysis, and a paired t-test.
resultsA total of 74 patients were examined. The central corneal thickness measured by Pentacam was 545.52 ± 30.16 μm, while 539.36 ± 30.16 μm for Revo FC (difference 5.52 μm; 95% CI: 4.42 to 6.61; p < 0.01). The thinnest corneal location measured by Pentacam was 540.93 ± 30.20 μm, while 531.04 ± 30.24 μm for Revo FC (difference 9.27 μm; 95% CI: 7.29 to 10.76; p< 0.01). However, the strong intraclass correlation coefficients (0.99 for central and 0.98 for minimum corneal thickness) indicate a high level of agreement between the two imaging systems.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that corneal thickness measurements with Pentacam were greater than with Revo FC OCT. Although highly correlated, the results cannot be considered interchangeable as the mean differences exceeded clinically acceptable limits.
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.