Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorGokcinar, Nesrin Buyuktortop
dc.contributor.authorYumusak, Erhan
dc.contributor.authorOrnek, Nurgul
dc.contributor.authorYorubulut, Serap
dc.contributor.authorOnaran, Zafer
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-25T18:34:01Z
dc.date.available2020-06-25T18:34:01Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationclosedAccessen_US
dc.identifier.issn0165-5701
dc.identifier.issn1573-2630
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0983-2
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/7748
dc.descriptionGokcinar, Nesrin Buyuktortop/0000-0001-7795-5188en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000476503500020en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 29984376en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose To compare the repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), corneal topography (CT) with a combined Scheimpflug-Placido system, optical biometry (OB), specular microscopy (SM), and ultrasound pachymetry (UP). Methods A single observer measured CCT twice in 150 eyes of 150 subjects with each of five devices: Nidek RS-3000 Advance OCT, CSO Sirius combined Scheimpflug-Placido disc system CT, Nidek AL-Scan partial coherence interferometry-based OB, Tomey EM-3000 SM, and Reichert iPac ultrasonic pachymeter. Pachymetry values corrected by the SM device software were also recorded. Levels of agreement between devices were evaluated by Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement, and repeatability for each device was analysed with intraclass correlation coefficients. Results The mean CCTs measured by OCT, CT, OB, SM, corrected SM, and UP were 544.60 +/- 29.56, 536.19 +/- 32.14, 528.29 +/- 29.45, 524.88 +/- 32.38, 537.88 +/- 32.38, and 545.29 +/- 30.75 mu m, respectively. Mean CCT differed significantly between the devices (p<0.05) apart from between OCT and UP, and between CT and corrected SM. Mean paired differences between devices ranged between 0.68 and 20.41 mu m. Repeatability with all devices was excellent (>0.99). The range of limits of agreement was the least between OCT and UP. Conclusions Different CCT measurement techniques produce quite different results, so CCT evaluation and follow-up should be performed using the same device or devices with close compatibility.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1007/s10792-018-0983-2en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCentral corneal thicknessen_US
dc.subjectCorneal topographyen_US
dc.subjectOptical coherence tomographyen_US
dc.subjectOptic biometryen_US
dc.subjectSpecular microscopyen_US
dc.subjectUltrasonic pachymeteren_US
dc.titleAgreement and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurements by four different optical devices and an ultrasound pachymeteren_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentKırıkkale Üniversitesien_US
dc.identifier.volume39en_US
dc.identifier.issue7en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1589en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1598en_US
dc.relation.journalInternational Ophthalmologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster