ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Agreement between a swept-source optical coherence tomography and dual Scheimpflug Placido analyser in healthy, keratoconus suspect and keratoconus eyes.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeTo evaluate the agreement and interchangeability of anterior and posterior corneal parameters measured by the swept-source optical coherence tomography–based ANTERION and the dual Scheimpflug–Placido GALILEI G4 in normal, keratoconus suspect (KS), and keratoconus (KC) eyes.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 221 eyes (129 normal, 40 KS, 52 KC) were examined using ANTERION and GALILEI G4 in a single session. Anterior and posterior keratometry (K1, K2, K Max), best-fit sphere (BFS), central corneal thickness (CCT), and minimum corneal thickness (MCT) were analysed. Inter-device agreement was assessed using paired statistical tests and Bland–Altman analysis.
resultsIn normal eyes, most parameters showed statistically significant mean differences with wide limits of agreement (LoA). In KS eyes, no significant differences were observed in each parameter. In KC eyes, mean differences were minimal, though LoAs were wide, particularly for anterior keratometry and pachymetry; only MCT showed a statistically significant difference. Pachymetric measurements consistently differed between devices, with ANTERION generally reporting smaller values.
conclusionThe wide LoAs between ANTERION and GALILEI indicate that the devices are not interchangeable, particularly for longitudinal monitoring in keratoconus. Consistent use of a single device is recommended in clinical practice.
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.