Cargando…

Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry

A meta-analysis to compare ocular biometry measured by optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar LS900; Haag Streit) and partial coherence interferometry (the IOLMaster optical biometer; Carl Zeiss Meditec). A systematic literature search was conducted for articles published up to August 6th 2015...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Jinhai, McAlinden, Colm, Huang, Yingying, Wen, Daizong, Savini, Giacomo, Tu, Ruixue, Wang, Qinmei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28233846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43414
_version_ 1782510148869160960
author Huang, Jinhai
McAlinden, Colm
Huang, Yingying
Wen, Daizong
Savini, Giacomo
Tu, Ruixue
Wang, Qinmei
author_facet Huang, Jinhai
McAlinden, Colm
Huang, Yingying
Wen, Daizong
Savini, Giacomo
Tu, Ruixue
Wang, Qinmei
author_sort Huang, Jinhai
collection PubMed
description A meta-analysis to compare ocular biometry measured by optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar LS900; Haag Streit) and partial coherence interferometry (the IOLMaster optical biometer; Carl Zeiss Meditec). A systematic literature search was conducted for articles published up to August 6th 2015 in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Wanfang Data. A total of 18 studies involving 1921 eyes were included. There were no statistically significant differences in axial length (mean difference [MD] 0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.08 to 0.08 mm; p = 0.92), anterior chamber depth (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI −0.07 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.67), flat keratometry (MD −0.05 D; 95% CI −0.16 to 0.06 D; p = 0.39), steep keratometry (MD −0.09 D; 95% CI −0.20 to 0.03 D; p = 0.13), and mean keratometry (MD −0.15 D; 95% CI −0.30 to 0.00 D; p = 0.05). The white to white distance showed a statistically significant difference (MD −0.14 mm; 95% CI −0.25 to −0.02 mm; p = 0.02). In conclusion, there was no difference in the comparison of AL, ACD and keratometry readings between the Lenstar and IOLMaster. However the WTW distance indicated a statistically significant difference between the two devices. Apart from the WTW distance, measurements for AL, ACD and keratometry readings may be used interchangeability with both devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5324074
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53240742017-03-01 Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry Huang, Jinhai McAlinden, Colm Huang, Yingying Wen, Daizong Savini, Giacomo Tu, Ruixue Wang, Qinmei Sci Rep Article A meta-analysis to compare ocular biometry measured by optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar LS900; Haag Streit) and partial coherence interferometry (the IOLMaster optical biometer; Carl Zeiss Meditec). A systematic literature search was conducted for articles published up to August 6th 2015 in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Wanfang Data. A total of 18 studies involving 1921 eyes were included. There were no statistically significant differences in axial length (mean difference [MD] 0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.08 to 0.08 mm; p = 0.92), anterior chamber depth (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI −0.07 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.67), flat keratometry (MD −0.05 D; 95% CI −0.16 to 0.06 D; p = 0.39), steep keratometry (MD −0.09 D; 95% CI −0.20 to 0.03 D; p = 0.13), and mean keratometry (MD −0.15 D; 95% CI −0.30 to 0.00 D; p = 0.05). The white to white distance showed a statistically significant difference (MD −0.14 mm; 95% CI −0.25 to −0.02 mm; p = 0.02). In conclusion, there was no difference in the comparison of AL, ACD and keratometry readings between the Lenstar and IOLMaster. However the WTW distance indicated a statistically significant difference between the two devices. Apart from the WTW distance, measurements for AL, ACD and keratometry readings may be used interchangeability with both devices. Nature Publishing Group 2017-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5324074/ /pubmed/28233846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43414 Text en Copyright © 2017, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Huang, Jinhai
McAlinden, Colm
Huang, Yingying
Wen, Daizong
Savini, Giacomo
Tu, Ruixue
Wang, Qinmei
Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry
title Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry
title_full Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry
title_fullStr Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry
title_full_unstemmed Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry
title_short Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry
title_sort meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28233846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43414
work_keys_str_mv AT huangjinhai metaanalysisofopticallowcoherencereflectometryversuspartialcoherenceinterferometrybiometry
AT mcalindencolm metaanalysisofopticallowcoherencereflectometryversuspartialcoherenceinterferometrybiometry
AT huangyingying metaanalysisofopticallowcoherencereflectometryversuspartialcoherenceinterferometrybiometry
AT wendaizong metaanalysisofopticallowcoherencereflectometryversuspartialcoherenceinterferometrybiometry
AT savinigiacomo metaanalysisofopticallowcoherencereflectometryversuspartialcoherenceinterferometrybiometry
AT turuixue metaanalysisofopticallowcoherencereflectometryversuspartialcoherenceinterferometrybiometry
AT wangqinmei metaanalysisofopticallowcoherencereflectometryversuspartialcoherenceinterferometrybiometry