Comparison of reliability and repeatability of corneal curvature assessment with six keratometers

References

• Elder MJ. The fourth New Zealand cataract and refractive surgery survey: 2007. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2008; 36: 604–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shimizu K, Misawa A, Suzuki Y. Toric intraocular lenses: Correcting astigmatism while controlling axis shift. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20: 523–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read SA, Collins MJ, Iskander DR, Davis BA. Corneal topography with Scheimpflug imaging and videokeratography: Comparative study of normal eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1072–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser N, Berendschot TTJM, Verbakel F, de Brabander J, Nuijts RMMA. Comparability and repeatability of corneal astigmatism measurements using different measurement technologies. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 1764–1770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Savini G, Hoffer KJ et al. A comprehensive assessment of the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements obtained using 8 different devices. PLoS One 2012; 7: e45607: 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann PC, Abraham M, Hirnschall N, Findl O. prediction of residual astigmatism after cataract surgery using swept source fourier domain optical coherence tomography. Curr Eye Res 2014; 39: 1178–1186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magar JBA, Cunningham F, Brian G. Comparison of automated and partial coherence keratometry and resulting choice of toric IOL. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 385–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivannaboon S, Soeharnila, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P. Comparison of corneal astigmatism and axis location in cataract patients measured by total corneal power, automated keratometry and simulated keratometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 2088–2093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whang W‐J, Byun Y‐S, Joo C‐K. Comparison of refractive outcomes using five devices for the assessment of preoperative corneal power. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2012; 40: 425–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Koodkaew S. Comparison of corneal astigmatism measurements of 2 optical biometer models for toric intraocular lens selection. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41: 364–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santodomingo‐rubido J, Mallen E, Gilmartin B, Wolffsohn JS. A new non‐contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86: 458–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alpins NA, Goggin M. Practical astigmatism analysis for refractive outcomes in cataract and refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 2004; 49: 109–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alpins N. Astigmatism analysis by the Alpins method. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 31–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett AG, Rabbetts RB. What radius does the conventional keratometer measure? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1991; 11: 239–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubbelman M, Weeber HA, van der Heijde R, Volker‐dieben HJ. Radius and asphericity of the posterior corneal surface determined by corrected Scheimpflug photography. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002; 80: 379–383.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yao K, Tang X, Ye P. Corneal astigmatism, high order aberrations, and optical quality after cataract surgery: microincision versus small incision. J Refract Surg 2006; 22 (Suppl 2): S1079–S1082.
   Google Scholar
• Guilbert E, Saad A, Grise‐dulac A, Gatinel D. Corneal thickness, curvature, and elevation readings in normal corneas: Combined Placido–Scheimpflug system versus combined Placido–scanning‐slit system. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 1198–1206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prajapati B, Dunne M, Armstrong R. Sample size estmation and statistical power analysis. Optometry Today 2010; Jul 16.
   Google Scholar
• Thibos LN, Horner D. Power vector analysis of the optical outcome of refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 80–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Avni I, Zadok D. Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143: 48–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirayama M, Wang L, Weikert MP, Koch DD. Comparison of corneal powers obtained from 4 different devices. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 148: 528–535. e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reuland MS, Reuland AJ, Nishi Y, Auffarth GU. Corneal radii and anterior chamber depth measurements using the IOLMaster versus the Pentacam. J Refract Surg 2007; 23: 368–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savini G, Carbonelli M, Sbreglia A, Barboni P, Deluigi G, Hoffer KJ. Comparison of anterior segment measurements by 3 Scheimpflug tomographers and 1 Placido corneal topographer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011; 37: 1679–1685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: An application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci 1997; 74: 367–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ. Accuracy of Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1193–1197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen D, Lam AK. Reliability and repeatability of the Pentacam on corneal curvatures. Clin Exp Optom 2009; 92: 110–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar