ArticleInternational ophthalmology2017
Refractive results of phacoemulsification in vitrectomized patients.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the refractive errors after uneventful phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in the cases of vitrectomized eyes and non-vitrectomized eyes. Vitrectomized eyes were divided into 2 groups: vitrectomy alone as Group 1, vitrectomy with gas tamponade as Group 2. Normal-controlled eyes were categorized as Group 3. Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and the measurements of axial length (AL) and keratometric value (K) were performed using the IOLMaster and the Haigis and SRK/T formula as subgroup A and B. The measurements of AL, K, and IOL power calculation were also performed by the applanation ultrasound and the SRK/T formula as comparison subgroup C. The mean numeric error (MNE) and median absolute error (MedAE) were compared between Groups and subgroups. The MedAE was not significantly different in Group 1A, 2A, and 3A, respectively (p > 0.05). The MNE was significantly different in Group 1A, 2A, and 3A (p = 0.04). Post hoc test showed an insignificant difference between Group 1A and 3A (p = 0.36), but significantly a higher MNE in Group 2A than that in Group 3A (p = 0.03). A significantly longer AL was noted in Group 1B and 2B, comparing with Group 1C and 2C (p < 0.01). Refractive outcomes after phacoemulsification sequential to vitrectomy alone were comparable to those in normal control. Hyperopic shift was found following phacoemulsification sequential to vitrectomy with gas tamponade comparing to normal eyes. A significantly longer AL was found using optical biometry compared to applanation ultrasound in vitrectomized eyes, but not in normal eyes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.