Cargando…

Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias

PURPOSE: To assess the agreement in the white-to-white (WTW) measurement with two different devices, the reproducibility and the probability of confusing sizing (PCS) in selecting a different implantable collamer lens (ICL). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: Images of 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fernández, Joaquín, Rodríguez-Vallejo, Manuel, Martínez, Javier, Tauste, Ana, Hueso, Elisa, Piñero, David P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6407395/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30777951
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_613_18
_version_ 1783401541872386048
author Fernández, Joaquín
Rodríguez-Vallejo, Manuel
Martínez, Javier
Tauste, Ana
Hueso, Elisa
Piñero, David P
author_facet Fernández, Joaquín
Rodríguez-Vallejo, Manuel
Martínez, Javier
Tauste, Ana
Hueso, Elisa
Piñero, David P
author_sort Fernández, Joaquín
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess the agreement in the white-to-white (WTW) measurement with two different devices, the reproducibility and the probability of confusing sizing (PCS) in selecting a different implantable collamer lens (ICL). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: Images of 192 eyes were captured with both devices. The WTW was measured automatically (OA) and manually (OM) with the Orbscan and Keratograph (KA and KM) by one examiner who repeated a total of four measures. A second examiner conducted a single manual measure for each device over the same image. The ICL sizing was computed for each measure of WTW and the PCS was calculated as the percentage of cases for which the confronted or repeated measure resulted in a different size of the ICL. The critical WTWs with highest PCS were identified. RESULTS: KM overestimated the WTW versus OM in 0.13 ± 0.18 mm (P < 0.001) but not in the automated method comparison, 0.01 ± 0.19 mm (P = 0.58). Inter-examiner reproducibility (R) was higher with OM than with KM, and the intra-examiner R decreased with the average of two measures in both cases. The PCS was higher with the increase of mean differences, the limits of agreement (LoAs), and R. WTWs from 11.1 to 11.2 mm, 11.6 to 11.7 mm, and 12.3 to 12.4 mm resulted in higher PCS. CONCLUSION: The mean difference is not enough to apply conversions between devices and the LoAs and R should be considered. Special attention should be taken for WTWs with higher PCS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6407395
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64073952019-03-28 Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias Fernández, Joaquín Rodríguez-Vallejo, Manuel Martínez, Javier Tauste, Ana Hueso, Elisa Piñero, David P Indian J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: To assess the agreement in the white-to-white (WTW) measurement with two different devices, the reproducibility and the probability of confusing sizing (PCS) in selecting a different implantable collamer lens (ICL). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: Images of 192 eyes were captured with both devices. The WTW was measured automatically (OA) and manually (OM) with the Orbscan and Keratograph (KA and KM) by one examiner who repeated a total of four measures. A second examiner conducted a single manual measure for each device over the same image. The ICL sizing was computed for each measure of WTW and the PCS was calculated as the percentage of cases for which the confronted or repeated measure resulted in a different size of the ICL. The critical WTWs with highest PCS were identified. RESULTS: KM overestimated the WTW versus OM in 0.13 ± 0.18 mm (P < 0.001) but not in the automated method comparison, 0.01 ± 0.19 mm (P = 0.58). Inter-examiner reproducibility (R) was higher with OM than with KM, and the intra-examiner R decreased with the average of two measures in both cases. The PCS was higher with the increase of mean differences, the limits of agreement (LoAs), and R. WTWs from 11.1 to 11.2 mm, 11.6 to 11.7 mm, and 12.3 to 12.4 mm resulted in higher PCS. CONCLUSION: The mean difference is not enough to apply conversions between devices and the LoAs and R should be considered. Special attention should be taken for WTWs with higher PCS. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2019-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6407395/ /pubmed/30777951 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_613_18 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Fernández, Joaquín
Rodríguez-Vallejo, Manuel
Martínez, Javier
Tauste, Ana
Hueso, Elisa
Piñero, David P
Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias
title Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias
title_full Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias
title_fullStr Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias
title_full_unstemmed Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias
title_short Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias
title_sort confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6407395/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30777951
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_613_18
work_keys_str_mv AT fernandezjoaquin confoundingsizinginposteriorchamberphakiclensselectionduetowhitetowhitemeasurementbias
AT rodriguezvallejomanuel confoundingsizinginposteriorchamberphakiclensselectionduetowhitetowhitemeasurementbias
AT martinezjavier confoundingsizinginposteriorchamberphakiclensselectionduetowhitetowhitemeasurementbias
AT tausteana confoundingsizinginposteriorchamberphakiclensselectionduetowhitetowhitemeasurementbias
AT huesoelisa confoundingsizinginposteriorchamberphakiclensselectionduetowhitetowhitemeasurementbias
AT pinerodavidp confoundingsizinginposteriorchamberphakiclensselectionduetowhitetowhitemeasurementbias