{"title":"眼生物测量综合比较:基于网络的大数据分析。","authors":"Jinjin Yu, Daizong Wen, Jing Zhao, Yiran Wang, Ke Feng, Ting Wan, Giacomo Savini, Colm McAlinden, Xuanqiao Lin, Lingling Niu, Sisi Chen, Qingyi Gao, Rui Ning, Yili Jin, Xingtao Zhou, Jinhai Huang","doi":"10.1186/s40662-022-00320-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically compare and rank ocular measurements with optical and ultrasound biometers based on big data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the US trial registry ( www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong>gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to October 22nd, 2020. We included comparative studies reporting the following parameters measured by at least two devices: axial length (AL), flattest meridian keratometry (Kf), steepest meridian keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism (AST), astigmatism vectors J<sub>0</sub> and J<sub>45</sub>, anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal diameter (CD) and lens thickness (LT). A network-based big data analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 129 studies involving 17,181 eyes, 12 optical biometers and two ultrasound biometers (with both contact and immersion techniques) were identified. A network meta-analysis for AL and ACD measurements found that statistically significant differences existed when contact ultrasound biometry was compared with the optical biometers. There were no statistically significant differences among the four swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) based devices (IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, Argos and ANTERION). As for Ks, Km and CD, statistically significant differences were found when the Pentacam AXL was compared with the IOLMaster and IOLMaster 500. There were statistically significant differences for CCT when the OA-2000 was compared to Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar, AL-Scan and Galilei G6.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For AL and ACD, contact ultrasound biometry obtains the lower values compared with optical biometers. The Pentacam AXL achieves the lowest values for keratometry and CD. The smallest value for CCT measurement is found with the OA-2000.</p>","PeriodicalId":4,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808957/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comprehensive comparisons of ocular biometry: A network-based big data analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jinjin Yu, Daizong Wen, Jing Zhao, Yiran Wang, Ke Feng, Ting Wan, Giacomo Savini, Colm McAlinden, Xuanqiao Lin, Lingling Niu, Sisi Chen, Qingyi Gao, Rui Ning, Yili Jin, Xingtao Zhou, Jinhai Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40662-022-00320-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically compare and rank ocular measurements with optical and ultrasound biometers based on big data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the US trial registry ( www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong>gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to October 22nd, 2020. We included comparative studies reporting the following parameters measured by at least two devices: axial length (AL), flattest meridian keratometry (Kf), steepest meridian keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism (AST), astigmatism vectors J<sub>0</sub> and J<sub>45</sub>, anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal diameter (CD) and lens thickness (LT). A network-based big data analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 129 studies involving 17,181 eyes, 12 optical biometers and two ultrasound biometers (with both contact and immersion techniques) were identified. A network meta-analysis for AL and ACD measurements found that statistically significant differences existed when contact ultrasound biometry was compared with the optical biometers. There were no statistically significant differences among the four swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) based devices (IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, Argos and ANTERION). As for Ks, Km and CD, statistically significant differences were found when the Pentacam AXL was compared with the IOLMaster and IOLMaster 500. There were statistically significant differences for CCT when the OA-2000 was compared to Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar, AL-Scan and Galilei G6.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For AL and ACD, contact ultrasound biometry obtains the lower values compared with optical biometers. The Pentacam AXL achieves the lowest values for keratometry and CD. The smallest value for CCT measurement is found with the OA-2000.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":4,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Energy Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808957/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Energy Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-022-00320-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-022-00320-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comprehensive comparisons of ocular biometry: A network-based big data analysis.
Purpose: To systematically compare and rank ocular measurements with optical and ultrasound biometers based on big data.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the US trial registry ( www.
Clinicaltrial: gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to October 22nd, 2020. We included comparative studies reporting the following parameters measured by at least two devices: axial length (AL), flattest meridian keratometry (Kf), steepest meridian keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism (AST), astigmatism vectors J0 and J45, anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal diameter (CD) and lens thickness (LT). A network-based big data analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1.
Results: Across 129 studies involving 17,181 eyes, 12 optical biometers and two ultrasound biometers (with both contact and immersion techniques) were identified. A network meta-analysis for AL and ACD measurements found that statistically significant differences existed when contact ultrasound biometry was compared with the optical biometers. There were no statistically significant differences among the four swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) based devices (IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, Argos and ANTERION). As for Ks, Km and CD, statistically significant differences were found when the Pentacam AXL was compared with the IOLMaster and IOLMaster 500. There were statistically significant differences for CCT when the OA-2000 was compared to Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar, AL-Scan and Galilei G6.
Conclusion: For AL and ACD, contact ultrasound biometry obtains the lower values compared with optical biometers. The Pentacam AXL achieves the lowest values for keratometry and CD. The smallest value for CCT measurement is found with the OA-2000.
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Energy Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of materials, engineering, chemistry, physics and biology relevant to energy conversion and storage. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important energy applications.