4.6 Article

Repeatability and Agreement of Orbscan II, Pentacam HR, and Galilei Tomography Systems in Corneas With Keratoconus

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 175, 期 -, 页码 122-128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.12.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To assess the repeatability and agreement of keratometry and pachymetry measurements obtained using 3 tomographers in eyes with keratoconus. DESIGN: Reliability analysis. METHODS: SETTING: Institutional. STUDY POPULATION: Fifty eyes of 50 participants with keratoconus. OBSERVATIONAL PROCEDURE: Steep keratometry, flat keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), and thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) measurements using Galilei, Orbscan II, and Pentacam HR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeatability was assessed using within-subject standard deviation (S-w), coefficient of variation (CV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were used to evaluate agreement between device pairs. RESULTS: For all studied parameters, ICC was > 0.97 with the least repeatable measurements obtained using Orbscan II. Mean steep keratometry values were similar while mean flat keratometry values were significantly different between all devices. The Galilei and Pentacam HR had the lowest 95% LoA for both CCT and TCT. There were no significant differences in mean CCT between Galilei and Pentacam HR. Mean Orbscan II CCT measurements were not significantly different overall but had wide 95% LoA with Pentacam HR (-47.95 to 58.09 mu m) and Galilei (-43.70 to 53.91 mu m). Mean Orbscan II CCT measurements were significantly lower when an acoustic factor of 0.92 was applied (-33.6 mu m vs Pentacam HR, P < .001; -33.6 mu m vs Galilei; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Keratometric and pachymetric measurements of keratoconic eyes obtained by Galilei, Orbs can II, and Pentacam were disparate. Measurements were less repeatable with Orbscan II compared with Pentacam HR and Galilei, although overall repeatability was high for all instruments. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据