Response to comments on: Repeatability of Orbscan III for anterior segment parameters in normal eyes.

Dear Editor,

We thank the authors[1] for the comments on our recently published article. In our article on “Repeatability of Orbscan III for Anterior Segment Parameters in Normal Eyes”, we had studied the repeatability of Orbscan III in 100 healthy normal eyes of 50 participants cross-sectionally.[2]

Responding to the author’s comment on the study duration being only 15 days and that it would be difficult to arrive at a good conclusion in this short duration, we would like to mention, that, 15 days was the duration necessary for us to reach our sample size of 100 eyes. We had performed three scans at 5-min intervals on each study eye, on a single visit of all these patients. Most studies on repeatability assessment of devices between three measurements have used a sample size of less than 100 eyes.[345] As this is not an interventional study where follow-up will provide additional data, we do not see any possibility of having acquired any additional information by extending the duration of our study. Hence, the duration of this study does not have any influence on the power of this study.

Secondly, the author has questioned the reason for the age limit for inclusion being 10–35 years and added that ocular pathologies usually set in after the age of 40 and it would have been interesting to include them. Our study was specifically aimed at assessment of repeatability in healthy eyes. Assessing device precision in eyes with ocular pathologies are separate ongoing works. Previous studies trying to assess healthy eyes have also had similar or narrower age ranges.[3] Lastly, regarding intraocular pressures, we had performed them as a part of routine assessment before deciding on patient inclusion for this study, as glaucoma was an exclusion factor in our study.[2]

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.