ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparison of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography biometry measurements with partial coherence interferometry optical biometry.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the agreement and interchangeability between a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT)-based biometer (REVO FC) and a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) device (AL Scan).
methodsThis prospective comparative cross-sectional study included 60 right eyes of 60 patients aged 40-82 years, diagnosed with senile cataracts. Measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K1, K2), and astigmatism vector components (J0, J45) were conducted using both devices. Paired comparisons were performed using appropriate statistical tests. Agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis, while correlation and reliability were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients and interclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed in AL (p = 0.507) or ACD (p = 0.218), with excellent correlations (AL: r = 0.998; ACD: r = 0.945). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated excellent agreement for AL measurements, with a mean difference (bias) of - 0.01 mm and narrow 95% limits of agreement (LoA: -0.245 to 0.225 mm). For ACD, the mean difference was 0.02 mm, with a moderately wider LoA (- 0.244 to 0.288 mm), indicating an acceptable but less robust agreement compared to AL. The keratometric values were significantly higher with REVO FC (K1: +0.76 D; K2: +0.94 D; both p < 0.001), indicating a systematic bias. Despite strong correlations (K1: r = 0.980; K2: r = 0.924), the Bland-Altman analysis revealed wide limits of agreement. J0 exhibited no significant difference (p = 0.889), whereas J45 differed significantly (p = 0.028). Both vector components demonstrated moderate agreement, with relatively wide limits of agreement.
conclusionREVO FC and AL Scan demonstrate excellent agreement for AL and ACD measurements and may be used interchangeably for these parameters. However, significant discrepancies in keratometric and astigmatic measurements limit their interchangeability.
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.