The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Repeatability of Corneal Thickness Measures
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the repeatability of three measures of corneal thickness: Orbscan Slitscan pachymetry, ultrasound pachymetry, and optical pachymetry. METHODS: Twenty normal subjects were tested on three occasions. Two occurred on the same day and the third was on a different day at approximately the same time of day as one of the first two visits. Central corneal thickness of the right eye was measured with a Haag-Streit optical pachymeter, a Humphrey Model 855 ultrasound pachymeter, and the Orbscan system. Day-to-day and same-day repeatability was assessed by calculating the difference between the values from two visits and determining the mean difference, the SD, and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) (LoA = mean +/- 1.96 SD). RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) central corneal thickness as measured by each instrument was as follows: 539 +/- 33 microm for optical pachymetry, 542 +/- 33 microm for ultrasound pachymetry, and 596 +/- 40 microm for Orbscan pachymetry. For day-to-day comparisons, optical pachymetry showed the poorest repeatability with 95% LoA of -61 to +32 microm. Ultrasound pachymetry showed better repeatability with 95% LoA of -22 to +24 microm. The Orbscan showed the best repeatability centrally with 95% LoA of -10 to +17 microm. Peripheral Orbscan pachymetry was less repeatable than that measured centrally but still more repeatable than central optical pachymetry. Similar results were found with same-day comparisons. CONCLUSION: The Orbscan system is the most repeatable technique for measuring corneal thickness but shows a significant bias toward greater corneal thickness measures than both ultrasound and optical pachymetry.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Brillouin Optical Microscopy for Corneal Biomechanics
Scarcelli, G., Pineda, R., & Yun, S. H. (2012) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8281 · Cited by 354
Novel Pachymetric Parameters Based on Corneal Tomography for Diagnosing Keratoconus
Ambrósio, R., Caiado, A. L. C., Guerra, F. P., Louzada, R., Roy, A. S., Luz, A., Dupps, W. J., & Belin, M. W. (2011) · Journal of Refractive Surgery · doi:10.3928/1081597x-20110721-01 · Cited by 349
Metadata
- Authors
- Marsich, M. M., & Bullimore, M. A.
- Venue
- Cornea
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 792-795
- ISSN
- 0277-3740 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087659766
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Repeatability of Corneal Thickness Measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003226-200011000-00007
- The paper
- Marsich, M. M., & Bullimore, M. A. (2000). The Repeatability of Corneal Thickness Measures. Cornea. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003226-200011000-00007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.