Title
Overview of the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the biometry values provided by various ophthalmic devices
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication type
article
Publication
Chicago, Ill. ,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
American journal of ophthalmology. - Chicago, Ill.
Volume/pages
158(2014) :6 , p. 1111-1120
ISSN
0002-9394
ISI
000345820400004
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present an overview of the measurement errors for various biometric devices, as well as a meta-analysis of the agreement between biometric devices using the Pentacam, Orbscan, and IOL Master as a reference. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of the literature. METHODS: The meta-analysis is based on data from 216 articles that compare a total of 24 different devices with the reference devices for the following 9 parameters: mean, steep and flat curvature of the anterior and posterior cornea; central corneal thickness; anterior chamber depth; and axial length. After the weighted average difference between devices has been determined, the "two one-sided t test" was used to test for equivalence between devices within certain thresholds defined by the measurement errors and the influence of these differences on the calculated refraction. RESULTS: In only 17 of the 70 comparisons a device was equivalent with the reference device within the thresholds set by the measurement error. More lenient thresholds, based on a change in calculated refraction of +/- 0.25 diopter, increased this number to a maximum of 25/50 comparisons (excluding pachymetry). High degrees of inconsistency were seen in the reported results, which could partially explain the low agreement between devices. CONCLUSION: As a rule, biometry measurements taken by different devices should not be considered equivalent, although several exceptions could be identified. We therefore recommend that clinical studies involving multiple device types treat this as a within-subject variable to avoid bias. The follow-up of individual patients using different devices should be avoided at all times. (C) 2014 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E-info
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000345820400004&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000345820400004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000345820400004&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/iruaauth/1198e7/3b5122179.pdf
Handle