ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Comparison of Biometric Measurements Between Anterior Segment Hyperparallel and Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the inter-device agreement between hyperparallel optical coherence tomography (HP-OCT) and swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) in quantitative anterior segment parameters. Methods: Phakic subjects aged ≥40 years were consecutively recruited at a tertiary eye hospital. Horizontal B-scans (0°-180°) were analyzed. On SS-OCT, parameters were measured automatically; on HP-OCT, they were extracted manually using 3D Slicer. Agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman plots, and orthogonal regression. Results: A total of 118 sectors from 59 subjects were analyzed. ICCs were ≥0.88 for all parameters except iris thickness (IT) at 750 µm (IT750, ICC = 0.66). HP-OCT consistently measured lower values than SS-OCT for angle opening distance (AOD) at 500 µm (AOD500: -0.024 [-0.036 to -0.013]) and 750 µm (AOD750: -0.032 [-0.050 to -0.015]), trabecular-iris space area (TISA) at 500 µm (TISA500: -0.008 [-0.013 to -0.003]) and 750 µm (TISA750: -0.012 [-0.020 to -0.004]), iris curvature (IC: -0.015 [-0.021 to -0.009]), IT750 (-0.031 [-0.041 to -0.022]), and anterior chamber depth (-0.118 [-0.138 to -0.098]). For the following parameters, differences between devices increased with larger measurements, with HP-OCT yielding proportionally lower values (proportional bias): AOD500, AOD750, TISA500, TISA750, IC, and lens vault. Conclusions: For anterior segment biometry, HP-OCT and SS-OCT showed high ICCs but limited interchangeability because of systematic and proportional bias. Translational Relevance: Understanding how HP-OCT measurements compare with those from SS-OCT is essential for clinical integration, because inter-device agreement and interchangeability guide how HP-OCT can be applied and interpreted in 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.