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
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.
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
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1191/096228099673819272 · Cited by 9,619
Cited by
Age-related changes in optical and biometric characteristics of emmetropic eyes
Atchison, D. A., Markwell, E. L., Kasthurirangan, S., Pope, J. M., Smith, G., & Swann, P. G. (2008) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/8.4.29 · Cited by 270
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.