Repeatability and comparability of simulated K values between a grid projection-based device and a Placido/dual Scheimpflug device

Julian Matius Tagal
{"title":"Repeatability and comparability of simulated K values between a grid projection-based device and a Placido/dual Scheimpflug device","authors":"Julian Matius Tagal","doi":"10.35119/MYJO.V2I4.145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To evaluate the repeatability and comparability of simulated K values obtained by the Galilei G4 Corneal Tomographer and the iDesign Wavefront Abberometer. \nMethods: The right eyes of 100 consecutive pre-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) patients were included in this study. Patients with a history or signs of previous corneal or ocular trauma and infection were excluded. Paired corneal measurements for flat (K1) and steep (K2) meridians were obtained with both the Galilei and the iDesign. Repeatability was evaluated by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV) of the paired measurements. The comparability between platforms was evaluated by calculation of the mean differences followed by the construction of Bland-Altman plots and calculation of limits of agreement (LOA). \nResults: While the mean CV for both devices was low (0.17% versus 0.57% for the Galilei and iDesign, respectively), a large proportion of eyes measured by the iDesign (22%) showed an absolute difference of > 0.5 D between paired readings, compared to 1% as measured by the Galilei. The Galilei consistently measured higher than the iDesign. Although the mean difference did not exceed 0.17 D, the LOAs were unacceptablywide at -0.52 D to 0.85 D and -0.69 D to 0.89 D for K1 and K2, respectively. \nConclusion: As regards keratometry, the iDesign demonstrated clinically unacceptable repeatability. Both platforms demonstrated sufficiently wide LOA that we could not recommend that they are used interchangeably.","PeriodicalId":405983,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35119/MYJO.V2I4.145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the repeatability and comparability of simulated K values obtained by the Galilei G4 Corneal Tomographer and the iDesign Wavefront Abberometer. Methods: The right eyes of 100 consecutive pre-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) patients were included in this study. Patients with a history or signs of previous corneal or ocular trauma and infection were excluded. Paired corneal measurements for flat (K1) and steep (K2) meridians were obtained with both the Galilei and the iDesign. Repeatability was evaluated by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV) of the paired measurements. The comparability between platforms was evaluated by calculation of the mean differences followed by the construction of Bland-Altman plots and calculation of limits of agreement (LOA). Results: While the mean CV for both devices was low (0.17% versus 0.57% for the Galilei and iDesign, respectively), a large proportion of eyes measured by the iDesign (22%) showed an absolute difference of > 0.5 D between paired readings, compared to 1% as measured by the Galilei. The Galilei consistently measured higher than the iDesign. Although the mean difference did not exceed 0.17 D, the LOAs were unacceptablywide at -0.52 D to 0.85 D and -0.69 D to 0.89 D for K1 and K2, respectively. Conclusion: As regards keratometry, the iDesign demonstrated clinically unacceptable repeatability. Both platforms demonstrated sufficiently wide LOA that we could not recommend that they are used interchangeably.
基于网格投影的装置和Placido/dual Scheimpflug装置之间模拟K值的可重复性和可比性
目的:评价Galilei G4角膜层析仪与设计波前像差仪模拟K值的可重复性和可比性。方法:选取100例连续行激光原位角膜磨圆术(LASIK)患者的右眼为研究对象。既往有角膜或眼部外伤和感染病史或体征的患者被排除在外。用Galilei和idedesign分别获得了平(K1)和陡(K2)经络的配对角膜测量值。通过计算配对测量的变异系数(CV)来评估重复性。通过计算平均差异、构建Bland-Altman图和计算一致限(LOA)来评估平台之间的可比性。结果:虽然两种设备的平均CV都很低(分别为0.17%和0.57%),但idedesign测量的大部分眼睛(22%)显示成对读数之间的绝对差异为>.5 D,而Galilei测量的绝对值为1%。Galilei的测量值始终高于design。虽然平均差异不超过0.17 D,但K1和K2的loa分别为-0.52 D至0.85 D和-0.69 D至0.89 D,这是不可接受的。结论:在角膜测量方面,设计具有临床不可接受的重复性。这两个平台都展示了足够宽的LOA,因此我们不建议将它们互换使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信