Dataset Information

Precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility) and Agreement of Corneal Power Measurements Obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace, and assess the agreement with measurements obtained by Allegro Topolyzer and IOLMaster.

Methods

The right eyes of 100 normal subjects were prospectively scanned 3 times using all the 4 devices. Another observer performed additional 3 consecutive scans using the Topcon KR-1W and iTrace in the same session. About one week later, the first observer repeated the measurements using the Topcon KR-1W and iTrace. The steep keratometry (Ks), flat keratometry (Kf), mean keratometry (Km), J0 and J45 were analyzed. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurements were evaluated by the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), coefficient of variation (CoV), test-retest repeatability (2.77Sw), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreements between devices were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and 95% limits of agreement (LoA).

Results

Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of the Ks, Kf and Km showed a CoV of no more than 0.5%, a 2.77Sw of 0.70 D or less, and an ICC of no less than 0.99. However, J0 and J45 showed poor intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility (all ICCs not greater than 0.446). Statistically significant differences existed between Topcon KR-1W and IOLMaster, Topcon KR-1W and iTrace, Topcon KR-1W and Topolyzer, iTrace and Topolyzer, iTrace and IOLMaster for Ks, Kf and Km measurements (all P < 0.05). The mean differences between Topcon KR-1W, iTrace, and the other 2 devices were small. The 95% LoA were approximately 1.0 D to 1.5 D for all measurements.

Conclusions

The Ks, Kf and Km obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace showed excellent intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility in normal eyes. The agreement between Topcon KR-1W and Topolyzer, Topcon KR-1W and IOLMaster, iTrace and Topolyzer, iTrace and IOLMaster, Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were not so good, they should not be interchangeable in clinical application. Given that the intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of corneal astigmatism measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were poor, it should be cautious that Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were applied for the preparation of toric lens implantation.

SUBMITTER: Hua Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4709181 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility) and Agreement of Corneal Power Measurements Obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace.

Hua Yanjun Y Xu Zequan Z Qiu Wei W Wu Qiang Q

PloS one 20160111 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace, and assess the agreement with measurements obtained by Allegro Topolyzer and IOLMaster.<h4>Methods</h4>The right eyes of 100 normal subjects were prospectively scanned 3 times using all the 4 devices. Another observer performed additional 3 consecutive scans using the Topcon KR-1W and iTrace in the same session. About one week later, the first observer repeated the ...[more]

PMID: 26752059

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo comprehensively assess the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements using 8 different devices.MethodsThirty-five eyes from 35 healthy subjects were included in the prospective study. In the first session, a single examiner performed on each subject randomly measurements with the RC-5000 (Tomey Corp., Japan), KR-8000 (Topcon, Japan), IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), E300 (Medmont International, Australia), Allegro Topolyzer (Wavelight AG, Germany), Vista (EyeSys, TX), Pentacam (Oculus, Germany) and Sirius (CSO, Italy). Measurements were repeated in the second session (1 to 2 weeks later). Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements were assessed based on the intrasession and intersession within-subject standard deviation (Sw), repeatability (2.77Sw), coefficient of variation (COV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was evaluated by 95% limits of agreement (LoA).ResultsAll devices demonstrated high repeatability and reproducibility of the keratometric values (2.77Sw<0.36D, COV<0.3%, ICC>0.98). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post test showed statistically significant differences (P<0.01) among mean keratometric values of most instruments; the largest differences were observed between the EyeSys Vista and Medmont E300. Good agreement (i.e., 95%LoA within ± 0.5D) was found between most instruments for flat, steep and mean keratometry, except for EyeSys and Medmont. Repeatability and reproducibility of vectors J(0) and J(45) was good, as the ICCs were higher than 0.9, except J(45) of Medmont and Pentacam. For the 95% LoAs of J(0) and J(45), they were all ? ± 0.31 among any two paired devices.ConclusionsThe 8 devices showed excellent repeatability and reproducibility. The results obtained using the RC-5000, KR-8000, IOLMaster, Allegro Topolyzer, Pentacam and Sirius were comparable, suggesting that they could be used interchangeably in most clinical settings. Caution is warranted with the measurements of the EyeSys Vista and Medmont E300, which should not be used interchangeably with other devices due to lower agreement.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01587287.

Project description:To assess the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of ocular parameters measured by the Tomey OA-2000 biometer, and to compare them with those measured by the IOLMaster.In this prospective study, the right eyes of 108 healthy subjects were included. Three consecutive scans were obtained by 2 observers using the Tomey OA-2000, and in the same session one observer used the IOLMaster (version 5.4.4.0006) for the measurements. About 1 week later, 3 scans were obtained by one observer using the Tomey OA-2000. The axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), keratometer readings, pupil diameter (PD) and corneal diameter (CD) values measured by the Tomey OA-2000 and IOLMaster were analyzed. The coefficient of variation (CoV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), within subject standard deviation (Sw) and 2.77Sw were calculated to assess the repeatability and reproducibility. The paired t test and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze the differences and agreements of parameters measured by the two devices, respectively.Intraobserver repeatability, and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of the AL, CCT, ACD, LT, Kf, Ks, Km, PD and CD values measured by the Tomey OA-2000 biometer showed a CoV of less than 1% except that for PD, and an ICC of more than 0.97 except that for PD and CD. The AL, Kf, Ks, Km and CD values measured by the Tomey OA-2000 were 0.058 ± 0.094 mm, 0.088± 0.150 diopters (D), 0.163 ± 0.170 D, 0.127 ± 0.117 D and 0.171 ± 0.217 mm lower than those measured by the IOLMaster, respectively (all Ps < 0.05). However, the ACD values from the two devices were comparable (P = 0.169). The 95% linite of agreement (LoA) of the AL, ACD, CD and all keratometer readings were no more than 0.24 mm, 0.14 mm 0.60 mm and 0.5 D, respectively.Except for the PD and CD, the ocular parameters measured by the Tomey OA-2000 were highly repeatable and reproducible. Except for the CD value, there was good agreement of ocular parameters measured by the Tomey OA-2000 and the IOLMaster in healthy eyes.

Project description:We compared the repeatability, reproducibility (intra- and inter-measurer similarity), separative power and subjectivity (measurer effect on results) of four morphometric methods frequently used in ichthyological research, the "traditional" caliper-based (TRA) and truss-network (TRU) distance methods and two geometric methods that compare landmark coordinates on the body (GMB) and scales (GMS). In each case, measurements were performed three times by three measurers on the same specimen of three common cyprinid species (roach Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758), bleak Alburnus alburnus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Prussian carp Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782)) collected from three closely-situated sites in the Lake Balaton catchment (Hungary) in 2014. TRA measurements were made on conserved specimens using a digital caliper, while TRU, GMB and GMS measurements were undertaken on digital images of the bodies and scales. In most cases, intra-measurer repeatability was similar. While all four methods were able to differentiate the source populations, significant differences were observed in their repeatability, reproducibility and subjectivity. GMB displayed highest overall repeatability and reproducibility and was least burdened by measurer effect. While GMS showed similar repeatability to GMB when fish scales had a characteristic shape, it showed significantly lower reproducability (compared with its repeatability) for each species than the other methods. TRU showed similar repeatability as the GMS. TRA was the least applicable method as measurements were obtained from the fish itself, resulting in poor repeatability and reproducibility. Although all four methods showed some degree of subjectivity, TRA was the only method where population-level detachment was entirely overwritten by measurer effect. Based on these results, we recommend a) avoidance of aggregating different measurer's datasets when using TRA and GMS methods; and b) use of image-based methods for morphometric surveys. Automation of the morphometric workflow would also reduce any measurer effect and eliminate measurement and data-input errors.

Dataset Information

Precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility) and Agreement of Corneal Power Measurements Obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility) and Agreement of Corneal Power Measurements Obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets