Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Prediction Accuracy Between 2 Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry Devices
American Journal of Ophthalmology, ISSN: 0002-9394, Vol: 265, Page: 156-164
2024
- 1Citations
- 4Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
To compare intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction accuracy of the Eyestar 900 (EyeS900) and the IOLMaster 700 (IOLM700) based on estimated and measured posterior corneal power. Retrospective, interinstrument reliability study. Setting: Institutional. Participants: Two hundred twenty-five eyes of 225 cataract surgery patients. Measurements: Patients underwent measurements by both devices preoperatively. Main Outcome Measures: Spherical Equivalent Prediction Error (SEQ-PE), spread of the SEQ-PE (precision) and the absolute SEQ-PE (accuracy) of each device using Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula with either estimated posterior keratometry (E-PK) or measured posterior keratometry (M-PK). Trimmed mean SEQ-PEs of EyeS900 E-PK, EyeS900 M-PK, IOLM700 E-PK, and IOLM700 M-PK were 0.03, 0.08, 0.02, and 0.09 D, respectively with no significant differences between EyeS900 E-PK and IOLM700 E-PK ( P = 0.31) as well as between EyeS900 M-PK and IOLM700 M-PK ( P = 0.31). Statistically significant SEQ-PE differences were found when E-PK and M-PK were compared, regardless of the device used, showing hyperopic SEQ-PE in M-PK calculations. Excellent correlation and agreement in SEQ-PE were found between the devices for both E-PK ( P < 0.001, r = 0.848, mean bias: +0.01 D, 95% LOA of −0.32 to +0.34 D) and M-PK ( P < 0.001, r = 0.776, mean bias: −0.01 D, 95% LOA of −0.42 to +0.39 D). No significant differences were found comparing absolute SEQ-PE and precision of the devices. The Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700 show comparable IOL power prediction accuracy by the BUII formula using either estimated or measured posterior keratometry. An adjusted lens factor may be required for BUII when utilizing measured posterior keratometry in both devices.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939424001600; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2024.04.013; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85194499868&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38643892; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002939424001600; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2024.04.013
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know