Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Kerala Journal of Op...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Kerala Journal of Ophthalmology
Article . 2023 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Blind spot in ultrasound central corneal thickness measurement – Central corneal thickness of apex versus central corneal thickness of vertex

Authors: Prasanna Venkatesh Ramesh; Sathyan Parthasarathi; Abhinay Ashok; Rajesh Kumar John;

Blind spot in ultrasound central corneal thickness measurement – Central corneal thickness of apex versus central corneal thickness of vertex

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) using ultrasound pachymetry (USP) (CCT apex) and specular microscopy (CCT vertex) and also to find out the intra-reading variability from the two instruments. Settings and Design: A prospective, observational study was conducted in a tertiary eye care center in southern India. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 12 patients (24 eyes, 96 data set eyes, 768 data points in total) aged 20–50, in non-pathological corneas. Eight CCT measurements by specular microscopy and eight measurements by USP were taken by two different experienced observers on day 1, followed by repeating the same on day 2. Statistical Analysis: The readings were averaged and compared by paired t-test. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. Variability between the eight readings produced by the same instrument was calculated and coefficient of variation was plotted. Inter-examiner variability and intra-examiner variability of the two modalities were studied, and it was considered statistically significant if P < 0.05. Results: The mean CCT by USP was 522.71 µm and the mean CCT by specular microscopy was 519.43 µm. The coefficient of variation of the eight readings varied significantly between the machines. On an average, the coefficient of variation was 0.4% compared to 0.8% in specular microscopy and USP, respectively. Conclusion: The intra-reading variability of ultrasound CCT is twice as that compared to specular microscopy. The clinical relevance of this spread is relevant and important in modern-day practice. Hence, it is better advisable that CCT readings from both the modalities, not be used interchangeably.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold