矢量角膜屈光度法:用功率矢量测定人工角膜屈光度仪中的前角膜散光。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Expert Review of Medical Devices Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2023.2206019
Raquel Salvador-Roger, Rosa Vila-Andrés, Vicente Micó, José J Esteve-Taboada
{"title":"矢量角膜屈光度法:用功率矢量测定人工角膜屈光度仪中的前角膜散光。","authors":"Raquel Salvador-Roger,&nbsp;Rosa Vila-Andrés,&nbsp;Vicente Micó,&nbsp;José J Esteve-Taboada","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2206019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A new keratometric routine that employs power vector management for manual keratometers is described. This study evaluates the agreement of the new proposed keratometric technique with the classical one.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>The applicability of a new keratometric routine was verified using Helmholtz's and Javal's keratometers. Results were obtained by two different and well-trained examiners over two different samples, one including 65 and the other 74 eyes, respectively. Both conventional keratometry and the newly proposed routine (named vecto-keratometry) were used in each eye to obtain the results. The clinical agreement between the methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For Helmholtz's keratometer, Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between methods for both astigmatic components being J<sub>0</sub> = 0.04 ± 0.20 D and J<sub>45</sub> = -0.07 ± 0.17 D. For Javal's keratometer, Passing-Bablok regression test determined regression line for J<sub>0</sub> difference as y<sub>0</sub> = 1.03, confidence interval: [0.98, 1.10] and regression line for J<sub>45</sub> difference as y<sub>45</sub> = 0.97, confidence interval: [0.83, 1.12].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vecto-keratometry provides accurate clinical results. It has been demonstrated that there are no significant differences between methods in any of the power vector astigmatic components; thus, both methods can be applied interchangeably.</p>","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vecto-keratometry: determination of anterior corneal astigmatism in manual keratometers using power vectors.\",\"authors\":\"Raquel Salvador-Roger,&nbsp;Rosa Vila-Andrés,&nbsp;Vicente Micó,&nbsp;José J Esteve-Taboada\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17434440.2023.2206019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A new keratometric routine that employs power vector management for manual keratometers is described. This study evaluates the agreement of the new proposed keratometric technique with the classical one.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>The applicability of a new keratometric routine was verified using Helmholtz's and Javal's keratometers. Results were obtained by two different and well-trained examiners over two different samples, one including 65 and the other 74 eyes, respectively. Both conventional keratometry and the newly proposed routine (named vecto-keratometry) were used in each eye to obtain the results. The clinical agreement between the methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For Helmholtz's keratometer, Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between methods for both astigmatic components being J<sub>0</sub> = 0.04 ± 0.20 D and J<sub>45</sub> = -0.07 ± 0.17 D. For Javal's keratometer, Passing-Bablok regression test determined regression line for J<sub>0</sub> difference as y<sub>0</sub> = 1.03, confidence interval: [0.98, 1.10] and regression line for J<sub>45</sub> difference as y<sub>45</sub> = 0.97, confidence interval: [0.83, 1.12].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vecto-keratometry provides accurate clinical results. It has been demonstrated that there are no significant differences between methods in any of the power vector astigmatic components; thus, both methods can be applied interchangeably.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Medical Devices\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Medical Devices\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2206019\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2206019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:介绍了一种采用功率矢量管理的人工角膜测量新方法。本研究评估了新提出的角膜测量技术与经典技术的一致性。研究设计与方法:采用Helmholtz和Javal角膜计验证了一种新的角膜测量程序的适用性。结果是由两个不同的、训练有素的检查员对两个不同的样本得出的,一个包括65只眼睛,另一个包括74只眼睛。在每只眼睛中使用常规角膜测量和新提出的常规(称为矢量角膜测量)来获得结果。采用Bland-Altman和Passing-Bablok分析评估两种方法的临床一致性。结果:对于Helmholtz的角度计,Bland-Altman图显示,J0 = 0.04±0.20 D和J45 = -0.07±0.17 D两个散像分量的方法吻合良好。对于Javal的角度计,Passing-Bablok回归检验确定J0差的回归线为y0 = 1.03,置信区间为[0.98,1.10],J45差的回归线为y45 = 0.97,置信区间为[0.83,1.12]。结论:角膜测定仪能提供准确的临床结果。已经证明,在任何功率矢量像散分量的方法之间没有显着差异;因此,这两种方法可以互换应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Vecto-keratometry: determination of anterior corneal astigmatism in manual keratometers using power vectors.

Background: A new keratometric routine that employs power vector management for manual keratometers is described. This study evaluates the agreement of the new proposed keratometric technique with the classical one.

Research design and methods: The applicability of a new keratometric routine was verified using Helmholtz's and Javal's keratometers. Results were obtained by two different and well-trained examiners over two different samples, one including 65 and the other 74 eyes, respectively. Both conventional keratometry and the newly proposed routine (named vecto-keratometry) were used in each eye to obtain the results. The clinical agreement between the methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok analysis.

Results: For Helmholtz's keratometer, Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between methods for both astigmatic components being J0 = 0.04 ± 0.20 D and J45 = -0.07 ± 0.17 D. For Javal's keratometer, Passing-Bablok regression test determined regression line for J0 difference as y0 = 1.03, confidence interval: [0.98, 1.10] and regression line for J45 difference as y45 = 0.97, confidence interval: [0.83, 1.12].

Conclusions: Vecto-keratometry provides accurate clinical results. It has been demonstrated that there are no significant differences between methods in any of the power vector astigmatic components; thus, both methods can be applied interchangeably.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.
期刊最新文献
Complications after peripherally inserted central catheter versus central venous catheter implantation in intensive care unit: propensity score analysis using a nationwide database. Thoracic impedance monitoring in heart failure: from theory to practice. Dynamic versus standard bougies for tracheal intubation with direct or indirect laryngoscopy in simulated or real scenarios: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Novel insights into thoracic endografts technology for prevention of distal stent-graft induced new entry (dSINE) following endovascular repair of type B aortic dissections: from bench to bedside A profile on the WISE cortical strip for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1