Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2021
Rethinking the optimal methods for vector analysis of astigmatism.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Koch Douglas D, Wang Li, Abulafia Adi, Holladay Jack T, Hill Warren
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and usefulness of certain methods of analyzing astigmatic vectors.
SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
DESIGN: Case samples.
METHODS: Using 2 sample cases for analysis of corneal surgically induced astigmatism and an actual toric intraocular lens (IOL) case, univariate analyses from the ASSORT program were compared to double-angle plots of preoperative and postoperative astigmatism and prediction errors.
RESULTS: Certain univariate figures for analyzing the 2 sample cases were misleading. For the toric IOL case, some of the key outcome vectors were inaccurate.
CONCLUSIONS: ASSORT's univariate analysis of astigmatic vectors can be unpredictably erroneous and misleading. Recommended vector analyses should include double-angle plots with centroids and confidence ellipses of preoperative and postoperative astigmatism and the prediction errors, along with means and standard deviations of these vector magnitudes.
SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
DESIGN: Case samples.
METHODS: Using 2 sample cases for analysis of corneal surgically induced astigmatism and an actual toric intraocular lens (IOL) case, univariate analyses from the ASSORT program were compared to double-angle plots of preoperative and postoperative astigmatism and prediction errors.
RESULTS: Certain univariate figures for analyzing the 2 sample cases were misleading. For the toric IOL case, some of the key outcome vectors were inaccurate.
CONCLUSIONS: ASSORT's univariate analysis of astigmatic vectors can be unpredictably erroneous and misleading. Recommended vector analyses should include double-angle plots with centroids and confidence ellipses of preoperative and postoperative astigmatism and the prediction errors, along with means and standard deviations of these vector magnitudes.