Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorTeberik, Kuddusi
dc.contributor.authorEski, Mehmet Tahir
dc.contributor.authorKaya, Murat
dc.contributor.authorAnkaralı, Handan
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-30T22:41:14Z
dc.date.available2020-04-30T22:41:14Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.departmentDÜ, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümüen_US
dc.descriptionTeberik, Kuddusi/0000-0003-3141-0531en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000451676200016en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 29022163en_US
dc.description.abstractBackgroundTo compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac((R)) and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.MethodsThis prospective study, subsequently admitted to the ophthalmology department, 76 healthy individuals were performed. The measurements were repeated three times for each eye, and average scores were statistically analyzed on the same day and almost at the same time. While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac((R)), and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively. The inter-rater agreement of measurements from the devices was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient, and 95% Confidence Interval and p values demonstrating statistically significance were also presented. In the graphical assessment of the agreement, the Bland-Altman graph was used.ResultsAmong 76 study participants, 43 (56.6%) were composed of women, and age level was 38.612.5years, ranging between 18 and 69. It was observed that the highest agreement was between the measurements obtained from Echoscan US-500 and iPac((R)) devices, but the agreement between the measurements of different devices was higher than 0.90. Bland-Altman graphics were also investigated; the results of four different devices were seen to be consistent with one another.ConclusionsTherefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac((R)), and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices. p id= Par5 Clinical Trial Registration number: 2016/112en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10792-017-0736-7en_US
dc.identifier.endpage2369en_US
dc.identifier.issn0165-5701
dc.identifier.issn1573-2630
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage2363en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0736-7
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/3148
dc.identifier.volume38en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000451676200016en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Ophthalmologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCentral corneal thicknessen_US
dc.subjectPac((R))en_US
dc.subjectScheimpflug cameraen_US
dc.subjectSirius topographyen_US
dc.subjectUltrasound pachymetryen_US
dc.titleComparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devicesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim Yok
Ä°sim:
3148.pdf
Boyut:
838.26 KB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Açıklama:
Tam Metin / Full Text
Ä°ndir

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Makale Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu