Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients

Open access
Buckhurst, P J, Wolffsohn, J S, Shah, S, Naroo, S A, Davies, L N, Berrow, E J·2009·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A new commercially available optical low coherence reflectometry device (Lenstar, Haag-Streit or Allegro Biograph, Wavelight) provides high-resolution non-contact measurements of ocular biometry. The study evaluates the validity and repeatability of these measurements compared with current clinical instrumentation. METHOD: Measurements were taken with the LenStar and IOLMaster on 112 patients aged 41-96 years listed for cataract surgery. A subgroup of 21 patients also had A-scan applanation ultrasonography (OcuScan) performed. Intersession repeatability of the LenStar measurements was assessed on 32 patients. RESULTS: LenStar measurements of white-to-white were similar to the IOLMaster (average difference 0.06 (SD 0.03) D; p = 0.305); corneal curvature measurements were similar to the IOLMaster (average difference -0.04 (0.20) D; p = 0.240); anterior chamber depth measurements were significantly longer than the IOLMaster (by 0.10 (0.40) mm) and ultrasound (by 0.32 (0.62) mm; p<0.001); crystalline lens thickness measurements were similar to ultrasound (difference 0.16 (0.83) mm, p = 0.382); axial length measurements were significantly longer than the IOLMaster (by 0.01 (0.02) mm) but shorter than ultrasound (by 0.14 (0.15) mm; p<0.001). The LensStar was unable to take measurements due to dense media opacities in a similar number of patients to the IOLMaster (9-10%). The LenStar biometric measurements were found to be highly repeatable (variability < or = 2% of average value). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were some statistical differences between ocular biometry measurements between the LenStar and current clinical instruments, they were not clinically significant. LenStar measurements were highly repeatable and the instrument easy to use.

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 · 10.1136/bjo.2008.156554

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Buckhurst, P. J., Wolffsohn, J. S., Shah, S., Naroo, S. A., Davies, L. N., & Berrow, E. J.
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-04-19
Volume
93
Issue
7
Pages
949-953
ISSN
0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148545040
Cited by
287
References
5
FWCI
20.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.2008.156554
The paper
Buckhurst, P. J., Wolffsohn, J. S., Shah, S., Naroo, S. A., Davies, L. N., & Berrow, E. J. (2009). A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.156554

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.