Biostatistics Research - Statistics, Uncertainty, Probability, Modeling

Biostatistics Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Biostatistics, including details on statistics, uncertainty, probability, modeling.


Biostatistics Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Biostatistics

Books on Biostatistics

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



Comparison of corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound and scheimpflug photography in eyes that have undergone laser in situ keratomileusis.

Ciolino JB, Khachikian SS, Belin MW

Department of Ophthalmology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, USA. ciolinoj@georgetown.edu

PURPOSE: To compare two methods of measuring central cornea thickness (CCT) in eyes that have undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. METHODS: The corneal thickness from 104 eyes of 53 consecutive patients undergoing the one-year follow-up after LASIK was measured with both the Pentacam (Oculus, Inc, Wetzlar, Germany) and ultrasonic pachymetry. All patients were examined at one clinical setting, where first Pentacam imaging was performed by one technician and then ultrasound pachymetry was performed by a masked second technician. The results were compared. RESULTS: The average age of the patient population was 38 years (range, 22 to 56 years) of those who underwent the one-year follow-up examination an average of 406 days (range, 264 to 579 days) after LASIK. The mean CCT measurement was 506 +/- 29.5 microm (range, 454 to 574 microm) with the Pentacam topographer and 505 +/- 31.7 microm (range, 433 to 576 microm) with ultrasound pachymetry. The average difference (Pentacam minus ultrasound) was 1.4 +/- 10.4 microm (range, -21.8 to 23.4 microm). CONCLUSIONS: The Pentacam's CCT measurement and that of ultrasound pachymetry show good correlation. Pentacam pachymetry may be substituted for ultrasound in the post-LASIK patient.

Published 24 December 2007 in Am J Ophthalmol, 145(1): 75-80.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Biostatistics Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Biostatistics Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (September)
  Issue 2 (October)
  Issue 3 (November)
  Issue 4 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)



Biostatistics Books

Random Walks in Biology

Random Walks in Biology