PMID- 27571223
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20170825
LR  - 20181202
IS  - 1538-9235 (Electronic)
IS  - 1040-5488 (Linking)
VI  - 93
IP  - 11
DP  - 2016 Nov
TI  - Central Corneal Thickness Reproducibility among Ten Different Instruments.
PG  - 1371-1379
AB  - PURPOSE: To assess agreement between one ultrasonic (US) and nine optical 
      instruments for the measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT), and to 
      evaluate intra- and inter-operator reproducibility. METHODS: In this 
      observational cross-sectional study, two masked operators measured CCT thickness 
      twice in 28 healthy eyes. We used seven spectral-domain optical coherence 
      tomography (SD-OCT) devices, one time-domain OCT, one Scheimpflug camera, and one 
      US-based instrument. Inter- and intra-operator reproducibility was evaluated by 
      intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and 
      Bland-Altman test analysis. Instrument-to-instrument reproducibility was 
      determined by ANOVA for repeated measurements. We also tested how the devices 
      disagreed regarding systemic bias and random error using a structural equation 
      model. RESULTS: Mean CCT of all instruments ranged from 536 +/- 42 mum to 577 +/- 40 
      mum. An instrument-to-instrument correlation test showed high values among the 10 
      investigated devices (correlation coefficient range 0.852-0.995; p values <0.0001 
      in all cases). The highest correlation coefficient values were registered between 
      3D OCT-2000 Topcon-Spectral OCT/SLO Opko (0.995) and Cirrus HD-OCT Zeiss-RS-3000 
      Nidek (0.995), whereas the lowest were seen between SS-1000 CASIA and Spectral 
      OCT/SLO Opko (0.852). ICC and CV showed excellent inter- and intra-operator 
      reproducibility for all optic-based devices, except for the US-based device. 
      Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated low mean biases between operators. 
      CONCLUSIONS: Despite highlighting good intra- and inter-operator reproducibility, 
      we found that a scale bias between instruments might interfere with thorough CCT 
      monitoring. We suggest that optimal monitoring is achieved with the same operator 
      and the same device.
FAU - Pierro, Luisa
AU  - Pierro L
AD  - *MD daggerPhD Department of Ophthalmology, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele 
      Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy (LP, LI, MG, FB); Vita-Salute San Raffaele 
      University, Milan, Italy (AA); and Cornea and Ocular Surface Unit, San Raffaele 
      Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy (PR).
FAU - Iuliano, Lorenzo
AU  - Iuliano L
FAU - Gagliardi, Marco
AU  - Gagliardi M
FAU - Ambrosi, Alessandro
AU  - Ambrosi A
FAU - Rama, Paolo
AU  - Rama P
FAU - Bandello, Francesco
AU  - Bandello F
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Observational Study
PL  - United States
TA  - Optom Vis Sci
JT  - Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of 
      Optometry
JID - 8904931
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - Cornea/*anatomy & histology
MH  - Corneal Pachymetry/instrumentation
MH  - Cross-Sectional Studies
MH  - Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological/*instrumentation
MH  - Female
MH  - Healthy Volunteers
MH  - Humans
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Observer Variation
MH  - Ophthalmoscopes
MH  - Organ Size
MH  - Photography/instrumentation
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Tomography, Optical Coherence/instrumentation
EDAT- 2016/10/27 06:00
MHDA- 2017/08/26 06:00
CRDT- 2016/08/30 06:00
PHST- 2016/10/27 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2017/08/26 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2016/08/30 06:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000974 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Nov;93(11):1371-1379. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000974.