Comparison of reliability and repeatability of corneal curvature assessment with six keratometers

Catriona A Hamer, Hetal Buckhurst, Christine Purslow, Gary L Shum, Nabil E Habib, Phillip J Buckhurst

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)


BACKGROUND: Keratometric methodology varies between instruments and the differences may have a clinical impact. We investigated the agreement and reproducibility of six keratometers.

METHODS: Keratometry was performed on 100 subjects at two separate sessions with IOLMaster 500, Pentacam, OPD scanner, Medmont E300, Javal-Schiøtz and TMS-5. A second observer assessed 30 subjects to determine inter-observer variability. A single individual was assessed on 10 separate sessions to determine intra-observer variability. Data were analysed using coefficient of variation (CV) and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICCC) for intra-observer variation. Inter-observer concordance was evaluated by the ICCC. Bland-Altman plots, Pearson's correlation coefficient and repeated measures analysis of variance were used to assess agreement of data produced by the instruments.

RESULTS: OPD scanner and Javal-Schiøtz mean spherical equivalent (MSE) results were systematically different (p < 0.001) from other instruments (flatter and steeper, respectively). J0 /J45 were similar for all instruments (p < 0.05). Bland-Altman comparison plots indicated that Pentacam and IOLMaster demonstrated greatest level of agreement (ICC results MSE = 0.992, J0 = 0.934 and J45 = 0.890). Agreement (ICC) between observers for MSE ranged from 0.955 to 0.995 for all instruments; lower levels of agreement were found for J0 /J45 (0.289 to 0.901). IOLMaster showed greatest correlation and Medmont the lowest. All instruments showed high intra-observer repeatability of MSE (CV 0.1 to 0.3 per cent). The J0 /J45 readings showed greater variability (CV range 8.8 to 57.6 per cent).

CONCLUSION: When considering MSE alone IOLMaster, Pentacam, OPD scan and Medmont may be considered interchangeable; however, assessment of astigmatism shows greater variability between instruments, sessions and observers.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)583-589
Number of pages7
JournalClinical and Experimental Optometry
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2016


  • astigmatism
  • corneal topography
  • corneal curvature
  • keratometry


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of reliability and repeatability of corneal curvature assessment with six keratometers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this