Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026
Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
Repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of corneal power measurements obtained with a new corneal topographer
Xinjie Mao1, Giacomo Savini, Zuopao Zhuo
1From the School of Optometry and Ophthalmology and Eye Hospital (Mao, Zhuo, Feng, Wang, Chen, Huang), Wenzhou Medical University, the Key Laboratory of Vision Science (Mao, Zhuo, Wang, Chen, Huang), Ministry of Health P.R. China, and the Department of Ophthalmology (Zhang), First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China; the G.B. Bietti Foundation IRCCS (Savini), Rome, Italy.
Purpose:
To study the repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements obtained with a new corneal topographer (Keratograph 4) and assess their agreement with those obtained by a rotating Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam HR) and an automated keratometer (IOLMaster).
Setting:
Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Design:
Observational cross-sectional study.
Methods:
One eye of normal subjects was measured 3 times using all devices. Another operator performed an additional 3 consecutive scans using the corneal topographer. One week later, the first operator repeated the corneal power measurements using the corneal topographer. Parameters were flat meridian power, steep meridian power, average power, J0, and J45. The repeatability and reproducibility of measurements were assessed by the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), repeatability (2.77 Sw), coefficient of variation (CoV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement between devices was assessed using 95% limits of agreement (LoA).
Results:
Intraoperator repeatability and interoperator and intersession reproducibility of all measured parameters showed a CoV of less than 0.3%, a 2.77 Sw of 0.32 diopter or less, and an ICC of more than 0.97. No significant differences in the parameters were noted between the corneal topographer and Scheimpflug camera. Statistically significant differences existed between the parameters analyzed by the corneal topographer and the automated keratometer, except J45. The mean differences between the corneal topographer and the other 2 devices were small, and the 95% LoA were narrow for all measurements.
Conclusion:
The new corneal topographer had excellent reliability and high agreement with the other 2 devices in corneal power measurements in normal subjects.
Financial Disclosure:
No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
