ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Comparison of corneal topography maps of a swept-source OCT biometer and a Scheimpflug device.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
purposeRating of central corneal topography of a swept-source OCT biometer (IOL Master 700) and tomographic maps from a Scheimpflug device (Pentacam AXL) by different experienced professionals regarding irregularities to support decisions on implanting premium intraocular lenses (IOLs).
methodsIn this prospective study healthy eyes (H), irregular corneas (I) and eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery (P) were randomly selected. Five observers with different experience in corneal map evaluation compared the corneal topography maps of both devices individually. They answered a questionnaire for each picture and eye and the matched pictures. The questionnaire included the similarity in regularity of the cornea, the classification of the pictures regarding the included patient groups and the decision of premium IOL implantation.
resultsThe study included 25 eyes per group. The correct category (H, I or P) was reported in 52% to 70% of individual cases. Except one observer (p < 0.001) there were no significant difference between the two devices. Most observers rated irregular corneas significantly different than healthy or post refractive surgery eyes (p < 0.001). There were significant inter-observer agreements among the three observers for rating implantation premium IOLs 0.137 to 0.374 (p < 0.05) and rating the correct category 0.435 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsIrregular corneas were rated as significantly different to healthy or post refractive surgery eyes. Most observers rated the images of the swept-source OCT biometer and the Scheimpflug device equally. Regarding the selection of premium IOL experienced colleagues are preferable.
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.