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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |