The proper uses of ophthalmic and optical instruments play an important role in diagnosis and treatment of eye diseases. Precision and accuracy assessment are the major indicator for evaluation of instruments. The former consists of repeatability and reproducibility， while the agreement assessment decides its accuracy. There are so many studies focused on this field due to the rapid development of new techniques and instruments， followed by the arising of problems in method selection. This article introduces the main methods of precision and accuracy assessment. And we also provide the ideas of proper method selection in clinical practice and research with examples. Moreover， we discussed the influence of analytic approach with one eye or two， as well as sample size calculation.
British Standard Institution. Accuracy （trueness and precision） of measurement methods and results： general principles and definitions. London： HMO，1994，BS ISO 5725 part 1.
[2]
British Standard Institution. Accuracy （trueness and precision） of measurement methods and results： basic methods for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method. London： HMO，1994，BS ISO 5725 part 2.
[3]
Bland JM， Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet，1986，1：307-310.
[4]
Bland JM， Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ，1996，313：744.
[5]
McAlinden C， Khadka J， Pesudovs K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement （comparison of clinical tests） and precision （repeatability or reproducibility） studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt，2011，31：330-338.
[6]
Shankar H， Taranath D， Santhirathelagan CT， et al. Anterior segment biometry with the Pentacam： comprehensive assessment of repeatability of automated measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg，2008，34：103-113.
[7]
Shankar H， Taranath D， Santhirathelagan CT， et al. Repeatability of corneal first-surface wavefront aberrations measured with Pentacam corneal topography. J Cataract Refract Surg，2008， 34：727-734.
[8]
Pesudovs K. Wavefront aberration outcomes of LASIK for high myopia and high hyperopia. J Refract Surg，2005，21：S508-512.
[9]
Lopez-Miguel A， Martinez-Almeida L， Gonzalez-Garcia MJ， et al. Precision of higher-order aberration measurements with a new Placido-disk topographer and Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor. J Cataract Refract Surg，2013，39：242-249.
[10]
McAlinden C， Khadka J， Pesudovs K. A comprehensive evaluation of the precision （repeatability and reproducibility） of the oculus pentacam HR. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci，2011， 52：7731-7737.
[11]
Chen S， Huang J， Wen D， et al. Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging， Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol，2012，90：449-455.
[12]
Schwartz SD， Hubschman JP， Heilwell G， et al. Embryonic stem cell trials for macular degeneration： a preliminary report. Lancet，2012，379：713-720.
[13]
Kiser AK， Mladenovich D， Eshraghi F， et al. Reliability and consistency of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity measures in advanced eye disease. Optom Vis Sci，2005，82：946-954.
[14]
Patel PJ， Chen FK， Rubin GS， et al. Intersession repeatability of visual acuity scores in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci，2008，49：4347-4352.
Kim SW， Byun YJ， Kim EK， et al. Central corneal thickness measurements in unoperated eyes and eyes after PRK for myopia using Pentacam， Orbscan II， and ultrasonic pachymetry. J Refract Surg，2007，23：888-894.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号