Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness measurement with non-contact methods: a comparative study

Mansoori, Tarannum; Balakrishna, Nagalla

doi:10.1007/s10792-017-0543-1

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the same devices, we found lower mean CCT with AL-scan and Sirius Topographer, which was 507.43 ± 33.54 and 512.08 ± 33.1 μm, respectively, in 127 healthy eyes (mean age, 35.91 + 7.7 years). [ 2 ] The present study[ 1 ] found a mean difference of 19.759 for CCT measurement and poor agreement with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) to be 17.220–22.299 ( P = 0.00) between the 2 devices. Our study reported a mean difference of − 4.6 μm for CCT and high level of agreement (95% LoA: -12.2 to 2.9, P = 0.26) between the 2 devices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement with Sirius Topographer and Nidek Axial Length Scan

Mansoori

2018

Indian J Ophthalmol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement with Sirius Topographer and Nidek Axial Length Scan

Mansoori

2018

Indian J Ophthalmol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, this is not a major lack as high repeatability and reproducibility of those devices were confirmed by the previous studies. 8,9,11,13,14,16 The second limitation of this study is that we did not evaluate the CCT in patients with corneal diseases such as keratoconus, post-contact lens wear, and post-refractive surgery. The results could be different in this patient population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three different optical devices

Üçer

Bozkurt

2021

Ophthalmol Eye Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) values obtained with three different devices working according to optical principle in healthy eyes. Methods: 60 eyes of 60 individuals (30 men and 30 women) were enrolled in this study. CCT measurements performed with Scheimpflug–Placido topographer (Sirius), spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (RTVue) with an anterior segment module, and optical biometer (AL-Scan) were compared. Bland–Altman analysis was used to demonstrate agreement between methods. Results: The mean age was 30.07 ± 7.313 years (range, 18–47 years). The mean CCT values obtained by RTVue, Sirius, and AL-Scan were 518.25 ± 36.38 µm, 526.08 ± 36.33 µm, and 513.50 ± 39.09 µm, respectively. The mean differences in CCT were 7.83 ± 14.15 µm between Sirius and RTVue, 12.58 ± 11.87 µm between Sirius and AL-Scan, and 4.75 ± 4.50 µm between RTVue and AL-Scan. The mean CCT was statistically different among the three groups ( p < 0.05). All three modalities of CCT measurements correlated closely with each other, with Pearson’s correlation coefficients ranging from 0.924 to 0.961. The 95% limits of agreement were −19.90 to 35.56 µm between Sirius and RTVue, −10.69 to 35.85 µm between Sirius and AL-Scan, and −4.07 to 13.58 µm between RTVue and AL-Scan. Conclusion: Different results could be obtained through different noncontact devices in CCT measurements. Although the measurement values obtained by these devices show a high level of correlation, it would be a more correct approach to not use them directly interchangeably in clinical practice. Evaluation and follow-up of CCT should be performed using the same device.

show abstract

“…Normal reference values represent an essential base of clinical judgment for the patients. Once the normal range of CCT is speci ed in a population, applicable studies can be completed without the necessity for a control group, and patients' pachymetry analyses can be adjudicated with more certainty [18][19][20][21]. Still, most ophthalmic diagnostic instruments produced in America and Europe use normal reference values of their populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference values of the central corneal thickness with different refractive errors for the adult Egyptian population

Gab-Alla¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Background: To generate reference values of the central corneal thickness (CCT) with different refractive errors for the adult Egyptian population. Methods: A retrospective, observational, and cross-sectional study of 2200 eyes in 1166 subjects scheduled for LASIK, who came to private refractive eye center, Ismailia, Egypt. The study period was from January 2018 to January 2020. The subjects were divided into a broad range of myopia with spherical equivalent (SE) <-0.5D and hyperopia SE> +0.5D. Then, the myopic eyes divided into low (SE>-3.0D), moderate (SE-3.0D to >-6.0D), and high (SE<-6.0D). Similarly, the hyperopic eyes were divided into low (SE<+3.0 D) and moderate (SE+3.0D to <+6.0D) and high >+6.0D. The refractive error was measured by an auto-refractometer (Topcon, Tokyo Optical Co., Ltd., Japan), and CCT was measured using Sirius (CSO, Florence, Italy). Results: The data of 1100 myopic eyes in 556 subjects (30.5% males and 69.5% females) and 1100 hyperopic eyes in 610 subjects (33.6% males and 66.4% females). The mean+SD of CCT for the total myopic subjects was 531.98+32.92μm, range (406 to 636μm). The mean+SD of SE was -4.1±2.5D, range (-0.5 to -12.0D). The mean+SD of CCT for the total hyperopic subjects was 529±38.8μm, range (448 to 619 μm). The mean+SD of SE was +3.65+1.97D, range (+0.5 to +8.5D).Conclusion: In this study, the mean of CCT of the Egyptian population was 531.9 μm for myopic and 529μm for hyperopic subjects respectively. The myopic and hyperopic subjects show a reduction in CCT with age. Females have a thinner cornea than males, 23.6% of the myopic eyes, and 16.5% of the hyperopic eyes have CCT less than 500μm.

show abstract

Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness measurement with non-contact methods: a comparative study

Abstract: AS-OCT underestimated CCT measurements when compared to other two devices in healthy subjects. Hence, one must be cautious when analyzing the results from different machines and should be aware that the measurement values are not interchangeable.

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement with Sirius Topographer and Nidek Axial Length Scan

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement with Sirius Topographer and Nidek Axial Length Scan

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three different optical devices

Reference values of the central corneal thickness with different refractive errors for the adult Egyptian population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About