Repeatability of pupil diameter measurements using three different topography devices

Purpose To evaluate the intra- and inter-device repeatability of pupil diameter measurements using three different devices in patients prior to corneal refractive surgery. Methods We examined preoperative measurements from a total of 204 eyes (102 patients) scheduled for corneal refractive surgery a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2023-08, Vol.18 (8), p.e0290417-e0290417
Hauptverfasser: Saad, Amr, Steinberg, Johannes, Frings, Andreas
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To evaluate the intra- and inter-device repeatability of pupil diameter measurements using three different devices in patients prior to corneal refractive surgery. Methods We examined preoperative measurements from a total of 204 eyes (102 patients) scheduled for corneal refractive surgery at two private centers between July and December 2021. Three consecutive scans were performed with three different devices (Sirius anterior segment analyzer, Pentacam HR, IOLMaster 500) in the same session by the same examiner under standardized conditions. To assess the intra- and inter-device repeatability, we calculated the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and demonstrated results using Bland-Altman plots. Results The measurement accuracy (intra-device repeatability) of Sirius and IOLMaster was comparable (ICC = 0.64 and 0.61, respectively), with almost no statistically significant differences. Sirius showed the highest measurement accuracy among the three devices. Pentacam measurements resulted in lower precision, with an ICC of 0.09. The agreement between the pairs of devices (inter-device repeatability) was low (wide LoA ranges, Table 5). Conclusion In this study, the intra-device repeatability of Sirius and IOLMaster was higher than that of the Pentacam, although it did not achieve an optimal level across all three devices. The three devices examined cannot be used interchangeably.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0290417