Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido versus ultrasound pachymetry for central corneal thickness: meta-analysis.
Central corneal thickness
Meta-analysis
Scheimpflug-Placido topographer
Ultrasound Pachymetry
Journal
Eye and vision (London, England)
ISSN: 2326-0254
Titre abrégé: Eye Vis (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101664982
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2021
18 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
11
06
2020
accepted:
13
01
2021
entrez:
19
2
2021
pubmed:
20
2
2021
medline:
20
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the difference in central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements in normal eyes between a rotating Scheimpflug camera combined with a Placido-disk corneal topographer (Sirius, CSO, Italy) and ultrasound pachymetry (USP). A systematic literature search was conducted for relevant studies published on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 1st, 2019. Primary outcome measures were CCT measurements between Sirius and USP. A random effects model was used to pool CCT measurements. A total of twelve studies involving 862 eyes were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found CCT measurements between Sirius and USP to be statistically significantly different (P < 0.0001). The mean difference between Sirius and USP was -11.26 μm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (-16.92 μm, -5.60 μm). The heterogeneity was I CCT measurements with the Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido topographer were statistically significantly lower than USP. However, it may be argued that the mean difference of 11.26 μm is not a clinically significant difference.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To compare the difference in central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements in normal eyes between a rotating Scheimpflug camera combined with a Placido-disk corneal topographer (Sirius, CSO, Italy) and ultrasound pachymetry (USP).
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted for relevant studies published on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 1st, 2019. Primary outcome measures were CCT measurements between Sirius and USP. A random effects model was used to pool CCT measurements.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of twelve studies involving 862 eyes were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found CCT measurements between Sirius and USP to be statistically significantly different (P < 0.0001). The mean difference between Sirius and USP was -11.26 μm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (-16.92 μm, -5.60 μm). The heterogeneity was I
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
CCT measurements with the Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido topographer were statistically significantly lower than USP. However, it may be argued that the mean difference of 11.26 μm is not a clinically significant difference.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33602345
doi: 10.1186/s40662-021-00227-5
pii: 10.1186/s40662-021-00227-5
pmc: PMC7891160
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5Subventions
Organisme : Foundation of Wenzhou City Science & Technology Bureau
ID : Y20180174
Organisme : Medical and Health Science and Technology Program of Zhejiang Province
ID : 2019KY111
Organisme : Zhejiang Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 2018C03012
Organisme : Zhejiang Provincial High-level Talents Program
ID : 2017-102
Références
Ophthalmology. 2000 Jan;107(1):105-11
pubmed: 10647727
Eye (Lond). 2018 May;32(5):915-923
pubmed: 29445115
J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:767012
pubmed: 26697213
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014 Jan;252(1):91-9
pubmed: 24218039
Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Aug;85(8):916-20
pubmed: 11466244
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2010 Sep-Oct;58(5):385-8
pubmed: 20689192
Semin Ophthalmol. 2016;31(5):467-72
pubmed: 25412328
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014 Dec;37(6):442-6
pubmed: 25151203
Int Ophthalmol. 2018 Dec;38(6):2363-2369
pubmed: 29022163
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Sep;37(9):1679-85
pubmed: 21855765
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012 Oct;35(5):208-12
pubmed: 22677890
Int J Ophthalmol. 2014 Apr 18;7(2):302-8
pubmed: 24790874
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005 Oct;83(5):539-42
pubmed: 16187989
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Jul;39(7):1074-80
pubmed: 23680632
Cornea. 2015 Mar;34(3):313-7
pubmed: 25611397
Int Ophthalmol. 2020 Jul;40(7):1759-1764
pubmed: 32221762
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Feb;39(2):219-24
pubmed: 23218819
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Sep;38(9):1626-32
pubmed: 22763002
Cornea. 2017 Apr;36(4):463-469
pubmed: 28002110
Optom Vis Sci. 1989 Dec;66(12):830-3
pubmed: 2626248
Ophthalmology. 1998 Jun;105(6):969-73
pubmed: 9627643
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
BMJ. 2012 Jan 03;344:d7762
pubmed: 22214758
Am J Ophthalmol. 1997 Jun;123(6):767-72
pubmed: 9535620
J Refract Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;21(5):496-8
pubmed: 16209449
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Jun;8(25):iii, 1-234
pubmed: 15193208
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr;65(4):288-294
pubmed: 28513492
Electron Physician. 2016 Dec 25;8(12):3441-3444
pubmed: 28163862
Cornea. 2006 May;25(4):404-7
pubmed: 16670475
Int Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun;37(3):491-498
pubmed: 27392914
Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:417-22
pubmed: 23467857
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985 Nov;26(11):1489-501
pubmed: 3863808
Surv Ophthalmol. 2000 Mar-Apr;44(5):367-408
pubmed: 10734239
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013 Jul;251(7):1855-60
pubmed: 23417340
Clin Exp Optom. 2019 Mar;102(2):126-130
pubmed: 30557910
BMC Ophthalmol. 2015 May 07;15:49
pubmed: 25947156
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Oct;34(10):1742-7
pubmed: 18812127
Int Ophthalmol. 2019 Jul;39(7):1589-1598
pubmed: 29984376
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 10;3:25
pubmed: 14606960
Cornea. 2018 Aug;37(8):1018-1024
pubmed: 29847492
Ophthalmology. 2010 Apr;117(4):705-10
pubmed: 20045561
Optom Vis Sci. 2005 Oct;82(10):892-9
pubmed: 16276321
Clin Exp Optom. 2012 Jul;95(4):386-98
pubmed: 22672114
Eye Contact Lens. 2003 Oct;29(4):223-9
pubmed: 14555897
Eye Vis (Lond). 2017 Oct 25;4:24
pubmed: 29124079
Cornea. 2010 Oct;29(10):1091-5
pubmed: 20628301
Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Nov;93(11):1371-1379
pubmed: 27571223
Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 24;7:43414
pubmed: 28233846
J Refract Surg. 2003 May-Jun;19(3):378-9
pubmed: 12777037