ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Evaluation of axial length measurement and other biometric parameters using three different generations of biometers.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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 biometric measurements obtained with partial coherence interferometry (IOLMaster 500, IOLM), optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar 900, LS900), and swept-source optical coherence tomography (Eyestar 900, ES900). Methods: In this prospective, observational study, axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AD), lens thickness (LT), and central corneal thickness (CCT) were measured with the three devices. Exclusion criteria were ocular disease, previous ocular surgery, and contact lens use within 72 h. Normality was assessed using the exact Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Comparisons were performed with paired T-tests and repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots, and correlation was evaluated using Pearson correlation ( Results: Two-hundred-six eyes of 103 healthy subjects (38 females) were recruited at Public hospital "San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona", Salerno, Italy. All devices showed excellent correlation for AL and ACD ( Conclusion: Despite excellent correlation, ES900 provided systematically higher AL and ACD values and different anterior segment measurements. Therefore, caution should be taken when using these devices interchangeably, especially in longitudinal studies and follow-up evaluations; device-specific interpretation is recommended to optimize refractive outcomes in cataract surgery.
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.