To compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac® and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.


 While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac®, and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively.  It was observed that the highest agreement was between the measurements obtained from Echoscan US-500 and iPac® devices, but the agreement between the measurements of different devices was higher than 0.90.  Therefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac®, and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices.



iPac
To compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac® and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.


 While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac®, and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively.  It was observed that the highest agreement was between the measurements obtained from Echoscan US-500 and iPac® devices, but the agreement between the measurements of different devices was higher than 0.90.  Therefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac®, and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices.



Echoscan US-500
To compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac® and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.


 While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac®, and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively.  Therefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac®, and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices.



Pentacam HR
To compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac® and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.


 While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac®, and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively.  Therefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac®, and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices.



Sirius topography