ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparison of Reproducibility and Repeatability of Corneal Topography Measured by ATLAS 500 and ATLAS 9000 in Average Patient Population.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the Placido-based ATLAS 500 topographer (straight and swivel-out positions) with its predecessor, ATLAS 9000. Design: Prospective, single-center, post-market observational study. Methods: In this prospective, single-center post-market study involving 100 eyes with various corneal profiles, two operators obtained randomized, repeated measurements using the ATLAS 500 and ATLAS 9000 topographers. Parameters included corneal power, astigmatism, white-to-white distance, meridian powers, aberrations, and Placido coverage. Primary outcomes were repeatability and reproducibility; secondary analyses assessed coefficient of variation (CV), inter-device agreement, and keratoconus classification (Cohen's κ). Results: The ATLAS 500 showed equal or superior repeatability and reproducibility compared to ATLAS 9000 across most parameters, with lower standard deviations (SDs) for central power (K1: 0.025 vs. 0.062 D; K2: 0.023 vs. 0.058 D) and astigmatism (0.015 vs. 0.018 D). The only exception was white-to-white distance, where ATLAS 9000 had lower variability (SD 0.032 mm vs. 0.066 mm), albeit with more missing data (41 vs. 10). The ATLAS 500 yielded lower coefficients of variation for corneal power and astigmatism (e.g. CV 0.058% vs. 0.146% for K1). Bland-Altman analysis showed minimal bias for K1/K2, with narrower limits in intra-device comparisons. Inter-device variability was greater for astigmatism and WTW, with ATLAS 500 measuring smaller WTW values. The swivel-out configuration increased Placido coverage by approximately 4%. Keratoconus classification showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.50) between devices. Conclusion: ATLAS 500 showed measurement precision comparable to or better than ATLAS 9000, with strong intra-device repeatability and broader corneal coverage in the swivel-out mode, confirming its suitability for routine corneal topography and refractive assessment.
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.