Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare and rank ocular measurements with optical and ultrasound biometers based on big data.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the US trial registry ( www.
BACKGROUND: gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to October 22nd, 2020. We included comparative studies reporting the following parameters measured by at least two devices: axial length (AL), flattest meridian keratometry (Kf), steepest meridian keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism (AST), astigmatism vectors J0 and J45, anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal diameter (CD) and lens thickness (LT). A network-based big data analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1.
RESULTS: Across 129 studies involving 17,181 eyes, 12 optical biometers and two ultrasound biometers (with both contact and immersion techniques) were identified. A network meta-analysis for AL and ACD measurements found that statistically significant differences existed when contact ultrasound biometry was compared with the optical biometers. There were no statistically significant differences among the four swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) based devices (IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, Argos and ANTERION). As for Ks, Km and CD, statistically significant differences were found when the Pentacam AXL was compared with the IOLMaster and IOLMaster 500. There were statistically significant differences for CCT when the OA-2000 was compared to Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar, AL-Scan and Galilei G6.
CONCLUSIONS: For AL and ACD, contact ultrasound biometry obtains the lower values compared with optical biometers. The Pentacam AXL achieves the lowest values for keratometry and CD. The smallest value for CCT measurement is found with the OA-2000.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the US trial registry ( www.
BACKGROUND: gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to October 22nd, 2020. We included comparative studies reporting the following parameters measured by at least two devices: axial length (AL), flattest meridian keratometry (Kf), steepest meridian keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism (AST), astigmatism vectors J0 and J45, anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal diameter (CD) and lens thickness (LT). A network-based big data analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1.
RESULTS: Across 129 studies involving 17,181 eyes, 12 optical biometers and two ultrasound biometers (with both contact and immersion techniques) were identified. A network meta-analysis for AL and ACD measurements found that statistically significant differences existed when contact ultrasound biometry was compared with the optical biometers. There were no statistically significant differences among the four swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) based devices (IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, Argos and ANTERION). As for Ks, Km and CD, statistically significant differences were found when the Pentacam AXL was compared with the IOLMaster and IOLMaster 500. There were statistically significant differences for CCT when the OA-2000 was compared to Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar, AL-Scan and Galilei G6.
CONCLUSIONS: For AL and ACD, contact ultrasound biometry obtains the lower values compared with optical biometers. The Pentacam AXL achieves the lowest values for keratometry and CD. The smallest value for CCT measurement is found with the OA-2000.
摘要：
目的：使用基于大数据的光学和超声生物测定器对眼部测量进行系统比较和排名。
方法：PubMed，Embase,Cochrane图书馆和美国试验登记处(www.
背景：gov）用于系统地搜索截至10月22日发表的试验，2020年。我们纳入了比较研究，报告了由至少两个设备测量的以下参数：轴向长度（AL），最平坦的子午线角膜曲率测量（Kf），最陡的子午线角膜曲率测量（Ks），平均角膜曲率（Km），散光（AST），散光矢量J0和J45，前房深度（ACD），水深度（AQD），中央角膜厚度(CCT),角膜直径（CD）和晶状体厚度（LT）。使用STATA13.1版进行了基于网络的大数据分析。
结果：在涉及17,181只眼睛的129项研究中，确定了12个光学生物计和两个超声生物计（具有接触和浸入技术）。对AL和ACD测量的网络荟萃分析发现，将接触式超声生物测定法与光学生物测定法进行比较时，存在统计学上的显着差异。四个基于扫频源的光学相干断层扫描（SS-OCT）的设备（IOLMaster700，OA-2000，Argos和ANTERION）之间没有统计学上的显着差异。至于Ks,Km和CD,当PentacamAXL与IOLMaster和IOLMaster500进行比较时,发现有统计学上的显著差异。当OA-2000与PentacamAXL相比时，CCT有统计学上的显著差异，IOLMaster700,Lenstar,AL-Scan和GalileiG6。
结论：对于AL和ACD，与光学生物测定相比，接触式超声生物测定法获得的值较低。PentacamAXL达到最低的角膜曲率和CD值。用OA-2000找到CCT测量的最小值。
方法：PubMed，Embase,Cochrane图书馆和美国试验登记处(www.
背景：gov）用于系统地搜索截至10月22日发表的试验，2020年。我们纳入了比较研究，报告了由至少两个设备测量的以下参数：轴向长度（AL），最平坦的子午线角膜曲率测量（Kf），最陡的子午线角膜曲率测量（Ks），平均角膜曲率（Km），散光（AST），散光矢量J0和J45，前房深度（ACD），水深度（AQD），中央角膜厚度(CCT),角膜直径（CD）和晶状体厚度（LT）。使用STATA13.1版进行了基于网络的大数据分析。
结果：在涉及17,181只眼睛的129项研究中，确定了12个光学生物计和两个超声生物计（具有接触和浸入技术）。对AL和ACD测量的网络荟萃分析发现，将接触式超声生物测定法与光学生物测定法进行比较时，存在统计学上的显着差异。四个基于扫频源的光学相干断层扫描（SS-OCT）的设备（IOLMaster700，OA-2000，Argos和ANTERION）之间没有统计学上的显着差异。至于Ks,Km和CD,当PentacamAXL与IOLMaster和IOLMaster500进行比较时,发现有统计学上的显著差异。当OA-2000与PentacamAXL相比时，CCT有统计学上的显著差异，IOLMaster700,Lenstar,AL-Scan和GalileiG6。
结论：对于AL和ACD，与光学生物测定相比，接触式超声生物测定法获得的值较低。PentacamAXL达到最低的角膜曲率和CD值。用OA-2000找到CCT测量的最小值。
