References
- Song JS, Yoon DY, Hyon JY, et al. Comparison of ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using IOL Master 500, IOL Master 700, and Lenstar LS900. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2020;34:126.
- Wylȩgała A, Mazur R, Bolek B, et al. Reproducibility, and repeatability of corneal topography measured by Revo NX, Galilei G6 and Casia 2 in normal eyes. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0230589.
- Kiraly L, Stange J, Kunert KS, et al. Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness and keratometry measurements between four different devices. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:1–8.
- Porporato N, Baskaran M, Tun TA, et al. Understanding diagnostic disagreement in angle closure assessment between anterior segment optical coherence tomography and gonioscopy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104:795–799.
- Nakakura S, Mori E, Nagatomi N, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements by 3-dimensional optical coherence tomography, partial coherence interferometry biometry, Scheimpflug rotating camera imaging, and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:1207–1213.
- Lopez De La Fuente C, Sanchez-Cano A, Segura F, et al. Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained by three different devices in healthy eyes. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:1–8.
- Wylęgała A, Bolek B, Mazur R, et al. Repeatability, reproducibility, and comparison of ocular biometry using a new optical coherence tomography-based system and another device. Sci Rep. 2020;10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71192-7.
- Jung S, Chin HS, Kim NR, et al. Comparison of repeatability and agreement between swept-source optical biometry and dual-scheimpflug topography. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:1–5.
- Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K, et al. Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;178:58–64.
- Crawford AZ, Patel DV, Mcghee CNJ. Comparison and repeatability of keratometric and corneal power measurements obtained by Orbscan II, Pentacam, and Galilei corneal tomography systems. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:53–60.
- Meyer JJ, Gokul A, Vellara HR, et al. Repeatability and agreement of orbscan II, pentacam HR, and Galilei tomography systems in corneas with keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;175:122–128.
- Haddad JS, Barnwell E, Rocha KM, et al. Comparison of biometry measurements using standard partial coherence interferometry versus new scheimpflug tomography with integrated axial length capability. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:353–358.
- Shin MC, Chung SY, Hwang HS, et al. Comparison of two optical biometers. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:259–265.
- Szalai E, Németh G, Hassan Z, et al. Noncontact evaluation of corneal grafts: swept-source Fourier domain oct versus high-resolution scheimpflug imaging. Cornea. 2017;36:434–439.
- Cho YJ, Lim TH, Choi KY, et al. Comparison of ocular biometry using new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer with other devices. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2018;32:257.
- Angmo D, Singh R, Chaurasia S, et al. Evaluation of anterior segment parameters with two anterior segment optical coherence tomography systems: visante and Casia, in primary angle closure disease. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67:500.
- Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990;16(3):333–340.
- Karnowski K, Gora M, Kaluzny BJ, et al. Quantitative analysis of the human cornea using high-speed swept source OCT. Opt Soc Am. 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1364/biomed.2010.jma46