Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Repeatability and Reproducibility of Central Corneal Thickness Measurement With Pentacam, Orbscan, and Ultrasound

LACKNER, BIRGIT, SCHMIDINGER, GERALD, PIEH, STEFAN, FUNOVICS, MARTIN A., SKORPIK, CHRISTIAN·2005·Optometry and Vision Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained with a novel rotating Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam; Oculus) with scanning slit topography (Orbscan; Bausch & Lomb), and with ultrasound pachymetry (SP-2000; Tomey). METHODS: CCT in 30 healthy eyes was measured twice with each modality by 2 independent observers in random order. The results from scanning slit topography are given both with and without multiplication with the "acoustic correction factor" of 0.92. In addition, the displayed images from the rotating Scheimpflug camera and scanning slit topography were used to calculate the signal difference-to-noise ratios (SD/N) between cornea and background signal. RESULTS: The mean CCT values as determined with the different modalities (+/-standard deviation) were: 542+/-29 microm, 576+/-37 microm, 530+/-34 microm, and 552+/-32 microm for rotating Scheimpflug imaging, for uncorrected and for corrected scanning slit pachymetry, and for ultrasound, respectively. The differences between modalities (+/-95% limits of agreement) were -9.8+/-31 microm between rotating Scheimpflug and ultrasound, 24+/-31.2 microm between scanning slit and ultrasound, and 33+/-27 microm between scanning slit and rotating Scheimpflug imaging. The limits of agreement for within and between observer effects were within 4.2% of the absolute CCT values for scanning slit and ultrasound and within 2.2% for the rotating Scheimpflug imaging. The rotating Scheimpflug camera showed similar SD/N ratios but steeper edges of the corneal surfaces in the intensity profile plots. CONCLUSION: In the assessment of normal corneas, the Pentacam measured CCT values closer to ultrasound pachymetry and with less variability compared with Orbscan. The (interobserver) reproducibility with the Pentacam was highest of all 3 modalities.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.opx.0000180817.46312.0a

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
LACKNER, B., SCHMIDINGER, G., PIEH, S., FUNOVICS, M. A., & SKORPIK, C.
Venue
Optometry and Vision Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-10
Volume
82
Issue
10
Pages
892-899
ISSN
1040-5488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150897478
Cited by
311
References
3
FWCI
13.09
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: Repeatability and Reproducibility of Central Corneal Thickness Measurement With Pentacam, Orbscan, and Ultrasound. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.opx.0000180817.46312.0a
The paper
LACKNER, B., SCHMIDINGER, G., PIEH, S., FUNOVICS, M. A., & SKORPIK, C. (2005). Repeatability and Reproducibility of Central Corneal Thickness Measurement With Pentacam, Orbscan, and Ultrasound. Optometry and Vision Science. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000180817.46312.0a

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.