ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Biometric Measurements and IOL Power Calculation Between a Swept-Source OCT and an Optical Low-Coherence Reflectometry Biometer.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the comparability of biometric measurements obtained using the swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer (Anterion) and the optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer (Lenstar LS900). Methods: This observational study included 150 cataract patients undergoing preoperative biometry at the General University Hospital of Elche. Measurements from the Anterion and Lenstar LS900 were compared for axial length (AL), mean keratometry (Km), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and central corneal thickness (CCT). Bland-Altman plots and statistical analyses were conducted to assess differences and correlations. Results: The mean AL measurements showed no significant difference between the two devices (mean difference -0.004 ± 0.053 mm, P = 0.420). ACD and LT measurements displayed statistically significant differences, with Anterion showing greater mean values (ACD difference: 0.054 ± 0.037 mm, P < 0.001; LT difference: 0.107 ± 0.079 mm, P < 0.001). Mean keratometry was significantly flatter by 0.074 ± 0.259D (P = 0.001) in Anterion compared to Lenstar, primarily due to differences in steep keratometry. No correlation was found between keratometry differences and corneal asphericity. Estimated intraocular lens (IOL) power for emmetropia was significantly higher using Anterion by 0.146 ± 0.398D (P < 0.001), necessitating an A-constant adjustment of approximately 0.16 to equal mean IOL power in both devices. Conclusion: a good correlation was found between both biometers. However, due to the differences found between biometric measurements between devices, these two biometers should not be considered interchangeable and clinicians should adjust IOL constants accordingly. Future studies will be necessary to determine whether one biometer is superior to the other in terms of refractive outcome predictability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.