ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Precision of Pachymetry Measured With a Portable High-Resolution Ultrasound, a Standard Ultrasound, and Two Scheimpflug Pachymeters.
Article in Journal of 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.
- Precision of Pachymetry Measured With a Portable High-Resolution Ultrasound, a Standard Ultrasound, and Two Scheimpflug Pachymeters.Journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subject: To assess the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) and agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by a high-resolution ultrasound (E-pach), a standard ultrasound, and two Scheimpflug pachymeters in healthy eyes. Methods: Instrument diagnostic test study. A total of 100 healthy volunteers were enrolled to measure right-eye CCT by a high-resolution ultrasound (E-pach), a standard ultrasound (A-scan device), and two Scheimpflug pachymeters (Pentacam and Corvis ST). To assess repeatability and reproducibility, the test-retest repeatability (TRT) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated. The agreement among the four devices was evaluated with Bland-Altman plots. Results: The high-resolution ultrasound (E-pach) showed repeatability (ICC = 0.9981), interobserver reproducibility (ICC = 0.9971), and intersession reproducibility (ICC = 0.9825); the standard ultrasound and two Scheimpflug pachymeters also showed similar repeatability (all ICC ≥ 0.9679), interobserver reproducibility (all ICC ≥ 0.9730), and intersession reproducibility (all ICC ≥ 0.9647). However, the high-resolution ultrasound yielded CCT values that were obviously lower than those of the standard ultrasound and Pentacam ( Conclusions: The high-resolution ultrasound is a portable, reliable, and inexpensive pachymeter. However, the CCT values obtained from the high-resolution ultrasound are not interchangeable with those from Pentacam, Corvis ST, and standard ultrasound.
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.