A Comparative Study on the Inter-Session and Inter-Examiner Reliability of Corneal Power Measurement Using Various Keratometry Instruments

IF 0.3 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Muziman Syah Mustafa, H. A. Mutalib, Sharanjeet Kaur Ms, Khairidzan Mk
{"title":"A Comparative Study on the Inter-Session and Inter-Examiner Reliability of Corneal Power Measurement Using Various Keratometry Instruments","authors":"Muziman Syah Mustafa, H. A. Mutalib, Sharanjeet Kaur Ms, Khairidzan Mk","doi":"10.31436/IMJM.V15I1.409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction : The purpose of this study was to evaluate inter-session repeatability, inter-examiner reproducibility and inter-device agreement of corneal power measurements from manual keratometer, autokeratometer, topographer, Pentacam high resolution and IOLMaster. Methods : Two sets of mean corneal power measurements ( n =40) were compared for inter-session repeatability and inter-examiner reproducibility in each instrument. Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated by within-subject standard deviation (Sw), coefficient of variation (COV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare differences in the corneal power between each instrument pair. The Bland and Altman analysis and Pearson’s correlation were employed to assess agreement and determine strength of relationship between measurements. Results : There were no significant differences in mean corneal power measurements between 2 different visits ( p > 0.05). The Sw and COV values between 2 visits were lower than 0.09 D and 0.20 % respectively. The ICCs were stronger than 0.99 in all instruments. For reproducibility of each instrument, differences of the measurements between 2 different examiners were also insignificant ( p > 0.05). The Sw and COV values between 2 examiners were lower than 0.11 D and 0.23 % respectively. The ICCs were 0.99 and above in all instruments. The 95% limit of agreement between instruments ranged from -0.29 to 1.13 D and the r- values were stronger than 0.84. Conclusion : The corneal power measurements using these 5 instruments were repeatable and reproducible. These instruments can also be used interchangeably, however the topographer should be used with caution.","PeriodicalId":53575,"journal":{"name":"International Medical Journal Malaysia","volume":"15 1","pages":"69-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Medical Journal Malaysia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31436/IMJM.V15I1.409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction : The purpose of this study was to evaluate inter-session repeatability, inter-examiner reproducibility and inter-device agreement of corneal power measurements from manual keratometer, autokeratometer, topographer, Pentacam high resolution and IOLMaster. Methods : Two sets of mean corneal power measurements ( n =40) were compared for inter-session repeatability and inter-examiner reproducibility in each instrument. Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated by within-subject standard deviation (Sw), coefficient of variation (COV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare differences in the corneal power between each instrument pair. The Bland and Altman analysis and Pearson’s correlation were employed to assess agreement and determine strength of relationship between measurements. Results : There were no significant differences in mean corneal power measurements between 2 different visits ( p > 0.05). The Sw and COV values between 2 visits were lower than 0.09 D and 0.20 % respectively. The ICCs were stronger than 0.99 in all instruments. For reproducibility of each instrument, differences of the measurements between 2 different examiners were also insignificant ( p > 0.05). The Sw and COV values between 2 examiners were lower than 0.11 D and 0.23 % respectively. The ICCs were 0.99 and above in all instruments. The 95% limit of agreement between instruments ranged from -0.29 to 1.13 D and the r- values were stronger than 0.84. Conclusion : The corneal power measurements using these 5 instruments were repeatable and reproducible. These instruments can also be used interchangeably, however the topographer should be used with caution.
不同角膜测量仪测量角膜屈光力的会话间和检查者间可靠性的比较研究
引言:本研究的目的是评估手动角膜曲率计、自动角膜曲率计和地形图仪、Pentacam高分辨率和IOLMaster角膜屈光度测量的会话间重复性、检查者间再现性和设备间一致性。方法:比较两组平均角膜屈光力测量值(n=40)在每种仪器中的会话间重复性和检查者间重复性。通过受试者内标准差(Sw)、变异系数(COV)和组内相关系数(ICC)评估重复性和再现性。进行单向重复测量方差分析,以比较每对仪器之间角膜屈光力的差异。采用Bland和Altman分析以及Pearson相关性来评估一致性,并确定测量之间的关系强度。结果:两次不同访视的平均角膜屈光力测量值无显著差异(p>0.05)。两次访视的Sw和COV值分别低于0.09D和0.20%。所有仪器的ICCs均高于0.99。对于每种仪器的再现性,两名不同检查者之间的测量结果差异也不显著(p>0.05)。两名检查者的Sw和COV值分别低于0.11D和0.23%。所有仪器的ICCs均为0.99及以上。仪器之间95%的一致性范围为-0.29至1.13 D,r值大于0.84。结论:使用这5种仪器测量角膜屈光力具有可重复性和可重复性。这些仪器也可以互换使用,但地形学家应谨慎使用。
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
International Medical Journal Malaysia
International Medical Journal Malaysia Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: International Medical Journal Malaysia (IMJM) is the official journal of the Kulliyyah (Faculty) of Medicine, International Islamic University Malaysia. It serves primarily as a forum for education and intellectual discourse for health professionals namely in clinical medicine but covers diverse issues relating to medical ethics, professionalism as well as medical developments and research in basic medical sciences. It also serves the unique purpose of highlighting issues and research pertaining to the Muslim world. Contributions to the IMJM reflect its international and multidisciplinary readership and include current thinking across a range of specialties, ethnicities and societies.
×
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