RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF 3 CORNEAL PACHYMETERS

We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of ophthalmology 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651
Hauptverfasser: WHEELER, NC, MORANTES, CM, KRISTENSEN, RM, PETTIT, TH, LEE, DA
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 651
container_issue 6
container_start_page 645
container_title American journal of ophthalmology
container_volume 113
creator WHEELER, NC
MORANTES, CM
KRISTENSEN, RM
PETTIT, TH
LEE, DA
description We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>webofscience</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_webofscience_primary_A1992HX95200005</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>A1992HX95200005</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-webofscience_primary_A1992HX952000053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVjc0KgkAAhPdQmP08QuCxCGtXXXWP27LigmmohzyJiYJRGmpEb5-H6FynYb75YABYIrhFEJm7CEKoqUQnxgoZa8uwbFslIyB_8QRMu-4yVHMYJSAhTGyCsQxQyD1B98ITcaKwgDuOYIL7caQEjqIPJPQ59ZQjZW5y4DEPozkYl9m1KxafnIGNw2Pmqs_i3JRdXhV1XqT3trpl7SuliBDNPRGsDecQ6__a9u82q_qsr5qaNY-619-Hn00j</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF 3 CORNEAL PACHYMETERS</title><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 1992&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>WHEELER, NC ; MORANTES, CM ; KRISTENSEN, RM ; PETTIT, TH ; LEE, DA</creator><creatorcontrib>WHEELER, NC ; MORANTES, CM ; KRISTENSEN, RM ; PETTIT, TH ; LEE, DA</creatorcontrib><description>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9394</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1598955</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>CHICAGO: OPHTHALMIC PUBL CO</publisher><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine ; Ophthalmology ; Science &amp; Technology</subject><ispartof>American journal of ophthalmology, 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>101</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wosA1992HX95200005</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27197,27929,27930</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>WHEELER, NC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORANTES, CM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KRISTENSEN, RM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PETTIT, TH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, DA</creatorcontrib><title>RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF 3 CORNEAL PACHYMETERS</title><title>American journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>AM J OPHTHALMOL</addtitle><description>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</description><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Science &amp; Technology</subject><issn>0002-9394</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EZCTM</sourceid><recordid>eNqVjc0KgkAAhPdQmP08QuCxCGtXXXWP27LigmmohzyJiYJRGmpEb5-H6FynYb75YABYIrhFEJm7CEKoqUQnxgoZa8uwbFslIyB_8QRMu-4yVHMYJSAhTGyCsQxQyD1B98ITcaKwgDuOYIL7caQEjqIPJPQ59ZQjZW5y4DEPozkYl9m1KxafnIGNw2Pmqs_i3JRdXhV1XqT3trpl7SuliBDNPRGsDecQ6__a9u82q_qsr5qaNY-619-Hn00j</recordid><startdate>19920615</startdate><enddate>19920615</enddate><creator>WHEELER, NC</creator><creator>MORANTES, CM</creator><creator>KRISTENSEN, RM</creator><creator>PETTIT, TH</creator><creator>LEE, DA</creator><general>OPHTHALMIC PUBL CO</general><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>EZCTM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19920615</creationdate><title>RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF 3 CORNEAL PACHYMETERS</title><author>WHEELER, NC ; MORANTES, CM ; KRISTENSEN, RM ; PETTIT, TH ; LEE, DA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-webofscience_primary_A1992HX952000053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Science &amp; Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>WHEELER, NC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORANTES, CM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KRISTENSEN, RM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PETTIT, TH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, DA</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 1992</collection><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>WHEELER, NC</au><au>MORANTES, CM</au><au>KRISTENSEN, RM</au><au>PETTIT, TH</au><au>LEE, DA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF 3 CORNEAL PACHYMETERS</atitle><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><stitle>AM J OPHTHALMOL</stitle><date>1992-06-15</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>113</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>645</spage><epage>651</epage><pages>645-651</pages><issn>0002-9394</issn><abstract>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</abstract><cop>CHICAGO</cop><pub>OPHTHALMIC PUBL CO</pub><pmid>1598955</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9394
ispartof American journal of ophthalmology, 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651
issn 0002-9394
language eng
recordid cdi_webofscience_primary_A1992HX95200005
source Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 1992<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Ophthalmology
Science & Technology
title RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF 3 CORNEAL PACHYMETERS
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T17%3A17%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-webofscience&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=RELIABILITY%20COEFFICIENTS%20OF%203%20CORNEAL%20PACHYMETERS&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=WHEELER,%20NC&rft.date=1992-06-15&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=645&rft.epage=651&rft.pages=645-651&rft.issn=0002-9394&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9&rft_dat=%3Cwebofscience%3EA1992HX95200005%3C/webofscience%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/1598955&rfr_iscdi=true