Literature DB >> 26854319

OPD-Scan III: a repeatability and inter-device agreement study of a multifunctional device in emmetropia, ametropia, and keratoconus.

Soheila Asgari1, Hassan Hashemi2, Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur3, Alireza Mohamadi3, Farhad Rezvan4, Akbar Fotouhi1.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the measurements of a multifunctional device, the NIDEK OPD-Scan III in terms of repeatability and agreement with retinoscopy and Pentacam in cases with emmetropia, ametropia, and KCN (grade 1-3). We enrolled 170 eyes (40 in each group of emmetropia and ametropia, and 90 in the 3 KCN subgroups). Acquisitions were done twice by a single technician to check the intra class correlation, repeatability index, and precision. To assess agreement, we compared OPD-Scan III with retinoscopy and Pentacam results by two blinded technicians. All device functions had acceptable precision in groups with emmetropia, ametropia, and KCN1, except spherical error in ammetropics (0.97 D). In KCN2, repeatability was acceptable with the refractive function, topography, and ocular aberrations but was more than 1.0 D for corneal aberrations. In KCN3, repeatability was low for the refractive function and corneal spherical aberration. Refractive data were not convertible to those obtained by retinoscopy in any group. OPD-Scan III keratometry data were interchangeable with Pentacam counterparts in emmetropes, ammetropes, and KCN1. In KCN2, the OPD-Scan III-Pentacam agreement for Kmax was 0.71 D, and there was 1.25 D difference in Kmin. No OPD-Scan III-Pentacam agreement was observed in KCN3. OPD- Scan III is a multifunctional device with acceptable repeatability in emmetropic, ammetropic, and KCN cases. Its measurements of corneal curvature and ocular aberrations are better than other functions. In cases with high degrees of refractive error and corneal irregularities, device repeatability and agreement with Pentacam is decreased.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Agreement study; OPD-Scan III; Repeatability

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26854319     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-016-0189-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.031


  15 in total

1.  Agreement between Pentacam and videokeratography in corneal power assessment.

Authors:  Giacomo Savini; Piero Barboni; Michele Carbonelli; Kenneth J Hoffer
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Measurement error.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-21

3.  Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry.

Authors:  S Jasvinder; T F Khang; K K S Sarinder; V P Loo; V Subrayan
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 4.  Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology.

Authors:  Colm McAlinden; Jyoti Khadka; Konrad Pesudovs
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Effect of keratoconus grades on repeatability of keratometry readings: Comparison of 5 devices.

Authors:  Hassan Hashemi; Abbasali Yekta; Mehdi Khabazkhoob
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.351

6.  Repeatability, reliability and reproducibility of posterior curvature and wavefront aberrations in keratoconic and cross-linked corneas.

Authors:  Haris Sideroudi; Georgios Labiris; Athanassios Giarmoulakis; Najia Bougatsou; Dimitrios Mikropoulos; Vassilios Kozobolis
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 2.742

7.  Agreement study of keratometric values measured by Biograph/LENSTAR, auto-kerato-refractometer and Pentacam: decision for IOL calculation.

Authors:  Hassan Hashemi; Soheila Asgari; Mohammad Miraftab; Mohammad Hassan Emamian; Mohammad Shariati; Akbar Fotouhi
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.742

8.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Accuracy of videokeratography for instantaneous radius in keratoconus.

Authors:  J S Chan; R B Mandell; D S Burger; R E Fusaro
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 1.973

10.  Precision of NIDEK OPD-scan measurements.

Authors:  Mike P Holzer; Susanne Goebels; Gerd U Auffarth
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.573

View more
  9 in total

1.  Intrasession repeatability of ocular anatomical measurements obtained with a multidiagnostic device in healthy eyes.

Authors:  David P Piñero; Inmaculada Cabezos; Alberto López-Navarro; Dolores de Fez; María T Caballero; Vicente J Camps
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 2.209

2.  OPD scan III accuracy: Topographic and aberrometric indices after accelerated corneal cross-linking.

Authors:  Soheila Asgari; Hassan Hashemi
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-11-14

3.  Mesopic Quality of Vision after Accelerated 18 mW/cm2 Corneal Cross-linking: Mid-term Results.

Authors:  Hassan Hashemi; Mohammad Miraftab; Soheila Asgari
Journal:  Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

4.  Intrasession repeatability of refractive and ocular aberrometric measurements obtained using a multidiagnostic device in healthy eyes.

Authors:  David P Piñero; Alberto López-Navarro; Inmaculada Cabezos; Dolores de Fez; María T Caballero; Vicent J Camps
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2017-05-04

5.  Comparison of higher order wavefront aberrations with four aberrometers.

Authors:  William H Cook; James McKelvie; Henry B Wallace; Stuti L Misra
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.848

6.  Comparison of variables measured with a Scheimpflug device for evaluation of progression and detection of keratoconus.

Authors:  Sophie Neuhann; Anna Schuh; Daniel Krause; Raffael Liegl; Valerie Schmelter; Thomas Kreutzer; Wolfgang J Mayer; Thomas Kohnen; Siegfried Priglinger; Mehdi Shajari
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Posterior Corneal Asphericity Effect on Postoperative Astigmatism after EDOF Intraocular Lens Implantation in Cataract Patients.

Authors:  Mark Rabinovich; Ivo Guber; Laëtitia Jessy Niegowski; Ana Maria Aramburu Del Boz; Danial Al Khatib; Jean-Pascal Genestier; Jerome Bovet
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 1.909

8.  A prediction model for sulcus-to-sulcus diameter in myopic eyes: a 1466-sample retrospective study.

Authors:  Qiu-Jian Zhu; Wei-Jian Zhu; Wen-Jing Chen; Lie Ma; You Yuan
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 2.086

9.  Comparison Between Aberrometry-Based Binocular Refraction and Subjective Refraction.

Authors:  Gonzalo Carracedo; Carlos Carpena-Torres; Maria Serramito; Laura Batres-Valderas; Anahi Gonzalez-Bergaz
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 3.283

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.