Limits...
Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer and ultrasound pachymetry.

Ladi JS, Shah NA - Indian J Ophthalmol (2010 Sep-Oct)

Bottom Line: There was no statistically significant difference between both the methods (P < 0.001).The coefficient of repeatability was 0.43% while the coefficient of reproducibility was 0.377% for the Galilei.Objective, noncontact measurement of the CCT with the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer was convenient, had excellent intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility, and findings were similar to those obtained with standard US pachymetry.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Dada Laser Eye Institute, Pune, India.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare corneal pachymetry assessment by the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer with that done by ultrasound (US) pachymetry.

Materials and methods: Forty six patients (92 eyes) were subjected to corneal pachymetry assessment by Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer and US. All the readings were taken by a single operator. Intraoperator repeatability for the Galilei was assessed by taking 10 readings in one eye each of 10 patients. To study the interoperator reproducibility for the Galilei, two observers took a single reading in both the eyes of 25 patients.

Results: The mean central corneal thickness (CCT) measured by US was 541.83 +/- 30.56 microm standard deviation (SD) and that measured by Galilei was 541.27 +/- 30.07 microm (SD). There was no statistically significant difference between both the methods (P < 0.001). The coefficient of repeatability was 0.43% while the coefficient of reproducibility was 0.377% for the Galilei.

Conclusion: Objective, noncontact measurement of the CCT with the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer was convenient, had excellent intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility, and findings were similar to those obtained with standard US pachymetry.

Show MeSH
Scatter plot for comparing CCT between two methods with no change line. X axis: measurement of CCT with Galilei in micrometers. Y axis: measurement of CCT with US in micrometers
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2992912&req=5

Figure 0002: Scatter plot for comparing CCT between two methods with no change line. X axis: measurement of CCT with Galilei in micrometers. Y axis: measurement of CCT with US in micrometers

Mentions: Fig. 2 is a scatter plot with a no change line to compare the CCT measurement by the two methods. Fig. 3 is a Bland–Altman plot and shows good agreement between Galilei and US. The 95% limits of agreement were –11.93 to +13.03. The plot indicates that there is no systematic bias between the two methods (P = 0.612 by linear regression method between difference and average by two methods.)


Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer and ultrasound pachymetry.

Ladi JS, Shah NA - Indian J Ophthalmol (2010 Sep-Oct)

Scatter plot for comparing CCT between two methods with no change line. X axis: measurement of CCT with Galilei in micrometers. Y axis: measurement of CCT with US in micrometers
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2992912&req=5

Figure 0002: Scatter plot for comparing CCT between two methods with no change line. X axis: measurement of CCT with Galilei in micrometers. Y axis: measurement of CCT with US in micrometers
Mentions: Fig. 2 is a scatter plot with a no change line to compare the CCT measurement by the two methods. Fig. 3 is a Bland–Altman plot and shows good agreement between Galilei and US. The 95% limits of agreement were –11.93 to +13.03. The plot indicates that there is no systematic bias between the two methods (P = 0.612 by linear regression method between difference and average by two methods.)

Bottom Line: There was no statistically significant difference between both the methods (P < 0.001).The coefficient of repeatability was 0.43% while the coefficient of reproducibility was 0.377% for the Galilei.Objective, noncontact measurement of the CCT with the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer was convenient, had excellent intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility, and findings were similar to those obtained with standard US pachymetry.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Dada Laser Eye Institute, Pune, India.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare corneal pachymetry assessment by the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer with that done by ultrasound (US) pachymetry.

Materials and methods: Forty six patients (92 eyes) were subjected to corneal pachymetry assessment by Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer and US. All the readings were taken by a single operator. Intraoperator repeatability for the Galilei was assessed by taking 10 readings in one eye each of 10 patients. To study the interoperator reproducibility for the Galilei, two observers took a single reading in both the eyes of 25 patients.

Results: The mean central corneal thickness (CCT) measured by US was 541.83 +/- 30.56 microm standard deviation (SD) and that measured by Galilei was 541.27 +/- 30.07 microm (SD). There was no statistically significant difference between both the methods (P < 0.001). The coefficient of repeatability was 0.43% while the coefficient of reproducibility was 0.377% for the Galilei.

Conclusion: Objective, noncontact measurement of the CCT with the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer was convenient, had excellent intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility, and findings were similar to those obtained with standard US pachymetry.

Show MeSH