ArticleClinical optometry2025
Intra- and Inter-Observer Agreement of a Portable A-Scan Ultrasound Biometer in Sitting and Supine Positions and Validity Against an Optical Biometer.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purposes of this study were to test the validity of a portable ultrasound biometer (6000 Scanmate-A, DGH Technology) against an optical biometer and to establish its repeatability and reproducibility on patients in sitting and supine positions. Patients and Methods: Healthy adults (N = 51) were recruited prospectively. At two study visits, Observer 1 made five measurements of AL and ACD in the right eye using an optical biometer (IOLMaster, Zeiss). Then two sets of three measurements of AL and ACD were made using the Scanmate-A, one while participants were sitting and another while they were supine. Observer 2 made the same measurements at one visit on a subset of participants (n = 42). Averages of the measurements were prepared for analysis (significance threshold set to α = 0.01) according to Bland and Altman, repeated-measures analyses of variance, linear correlations, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: AL and ACD were significantly shorter when measured by the Scanmate-A (median [interquartile range] = 23.4 [22.5, 24.7] mm and mean ± standard deviation = 3.22 ± 0.45 mm, respectively) than when measured by IOLMaster (23.8 [23.1, 25.2] mm and 3.51 ± 0.33 mm, respectively). For both body positions, there were no differences in ACD and AL between visit 1 and visit 2. Correlations were strong between the visits, but the limits of agreement varied. Similarly, there were no significant differences between Observer 1 and Observer 2. Correlations and ICC were strong-to-moderate between the observers, and the limits of agreement varied. Conclusion: Consistent with reports on other a-scan devices, the Scanmate-A measured shorter AL and shallower ACD than the IOLMaster. Although, mean or median AL and ACD did not differ across study visits, observers, and body positions, large limits of agreement on Bland-Altman analyses must be accounted for by users of the Scanmate-A.
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.