Colm McAlinden1,2,3, Rongrong Gao1,4, Ayong Yu1,4, Xiaorui Wang1, Jing Yang1, Ye Yu1,4, Hao Chen1,4, Qinmei Wang1,4, Jinhai Huang1,4. 1. School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. ABM University Health Board, Swansea, UK. 3. Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 4. Key Laboratory of Vision Science, Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the repeatability and agreement between the Aladdin and Lenstar biometers. METHODS: Three consecutive measurements of the right eye of 102 subjects were acquired by the Aladdin (V.1.1.3) and the Lenstar (V.1.0.3), respectively, with a random order of which biometer to use first. Parameters compared included axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), flat keratometry (Kf), steep keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), J0, J45 and white-to-white (WTW) distance. Intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas included SRK/T (Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical), Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and Haigis. Repeatability (Sr), repeatability limit (r) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. RESULTS: Sr was marginally better with the Lenstar for AL (0.02 mm), ACD (0.02 mm) and WTW distance (0.07 mm), but Sr was marginally better with the Aladdin for Kf (0.10 dioptre (D)), J0 (0.07 D) and J45 (0.06 D). In terms of agreement, the mean difference was small and non-statistically significant between the two devices for ACD, Ks and J45. The mean difference for Kf, Km, J0 and WTW distance were all statistically significantly lower with the Aladdin than the Lenstar for the exception of WTW distance. The Bland-Altman LoA displayed narrow ranges implying good agreement with the exception for WTW distance. For IOL formulas, the mean difference was very small and not statistically significantly different. The LoA were narrow (within 0.50 D), implying acceptable use of each device interchangeably. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of repeatability and agreement were found between the Aladdin and Lenstar suggesting that the devices may be used interchangeably in normal eyes with refractive error. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the repeatability and agreement between the Aladdin and Lenstar biometers. METHODS: Three consecutive measurements of the right eye of 102 subjects were acquired by the Aladdin (V.1.1.3) and the Lenstar (V.1.0.3), respectively, with a random order of which biometer to use first. Parameters compared included axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), flat keratometry (Kf), steep keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), J0, J45 and white-to-white (WTW) distance. Intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas included SRK/T (Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical), Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and Haigis. Repeatability (Sr), repeatability limit (r) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. RESULTS: Sr was marginally better with the Lenstar for AL (0.02 mm), ACD (0.02 mm) and WTW distance (0.07 mm), but Sr was marginally better with the Aladdin for Kf (0.10 dioptre (D)), J0 (0.07 D) and J45 (0.06 D). In terms of agreement, the mean difference was small and non-statistically significant between the two devices for ACD, Ks and J45. The mean difference for Kf, Km, J0 and WTW distance were all statistically significantly lower with the Aladdin than the Lenstar for the exception of WTW distance. The Bland-Altman LoA displayed narrow ranges implying good agreement with the exception for WTW distance. For IOL formulas, the mean difference was very small and not statistically significantly different. The LoA were narrow (within 0.50 D), implying acceptable use of each device interchangeably. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of repeatability and agreement were found between the Aladdin and Lenstar suggesting that the devices may be used interchangeably in normal eyes with refractive error. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.