Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2013
Analysis of waveform-derived ORA parameters in early forms of keratoconus and normal corneas.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ventura Bruna V, Machado Aydano P, Ambrósio Renato, Ribeiro Guilherme, Araújo Luana N, Luz Allan, Lyra João Marcelo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, NY) performance in differentiating grades I and II keratoconus from normal corneas using 41 parameters individually and to assess the effect of analyzing all parameters together.
METHODS: This study compared the mean value of 41 ORA parameters in grades I and II keratoconus with healthy age-matched control eyes. Only eyes with a central corneal thickness between 500 and 600 μm were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated for each of the 41 parameters independently and for all of the parameters together.
RESULTS: This study included 136 eyes with normal corneas and 68 eyes with grades I and II keratoconus. When analyzed individually, four ORA parameters (p1area, p1area1, p2area, and p2area1) had an area under the curve greater than 0.900 for discriminating between both groups. The p2area was the parameter that achieved the largest area under the curve individually (0.931). The area under the curve increased to 0.978 when analyzing all parameters together.
CONCLUSION: Alternative ORA parameters are better for differentiating grades I and II keratoconus from normal corneas than the four parameters originally available for ophthalmologists (corneal hysteresis, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure, corneal-compensated intraocular pressure, and corneal resistance factor). Although the ORA did not achieve 100% accuracy, the discrimination between these two groups was optimized by combining all parameters.
METHODS: This study compared the mean value of 41 ORA parameters in grades I and II keratoconus with healthy age-matched control eyes. Only eyes with a central corneal thickness between 500 and 600 μm were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated for each of the 41 parameters independently and for all of the parameters together.
RESULTS: This study included 136 eyes with normal corneas and 68 eyes with grades I and II keratoconus. When analyzed individually, four ORA parameters (p1area, p1area1, p2area, and p2area1) had an area under the curve greater than 0.900 for discriminating between both groups. The p2area was the parameter that achieved the largest area under the curve individually (0.931). The area under the curve increased to 0.978 when analyzing all parameters together.
CONCLUSION: Alternative ORA parameters are better for differentiating grades I and II keratoconus from normal corneas than the four parameters originally available for ophthalmologists (corneal hysteresis, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure, corneal-compensated intraocular pressure, and corneal resistance factor). Although the ORA did not achieve 100% accuracy, the discrimination between these two groups was optimized by combining all parameters.