Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A meta-analysis to compare ocular biometry measured by optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar LS900; Haag Streit) and partial coherence interferometry (the IOLMaster optical biometer; Carl Zeiss Meditec). A systematic literature search was conducted for articles published up to August 6th 2015 in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Wanfang Data. A total of 18 studies involving 1921 eyes were included. There were no statistically significant differences in axial length (mean difference [MD] 0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.08 mm; p = 0.92), anterior chamber depth (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.67), flat keratometry (MD -0.05 D; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06 D; p = 0.39), steep keratometry (MD -0.09 D; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.03 D; p = 0.13), and mean keratometry (MD -0.15 D; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.00 D; p = 0.05). The white to white distance showed a statistically significant difference (MD -0.14 mm; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.02 mm; p = 0.02). In conclusion, there was no difference in the comparison of AL, ACD and keratometry readings between the Lenstar and IOLMaster. However the WTW distance indicated a statistically significant difference between the two devices. Apart from the WTW distance, measurements for AL, ACD and keratometry readings may be used interchangeability with both devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: