ArticlePloS one2017
Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Segmentation of patients with cataract according to their ocular biometry: the LAKE classification.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Observational
- Accuracy of 7 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure glaucoma eyes, according to axial length and anterior chamber depth.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Determinants of angle kappa in cataract patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Biometric Factors in the VRF-G Formula for IOL Power Calculation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Insight into small eyes: a practical description from phenotypes presentations to the management.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Relationship between the main components of the crystalline lens and the anterior chamber depth after cataract formation.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Factors contributing to long-term refractive error after cataract surgery.International ophthalmology · 2023Observational
- Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with a shallow anterior chamber depth and normal axial length.PloS one · 2023Article
- Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021Article
- Development and Evaluation of the Prognostic Nomogram to Predict Refractive Error in Patients With Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma Who Underwent Cataract Surgery Combined With Goniosynechialysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Reliability of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer in Healthy Children, Adults, and Cataract Patients.Journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Accuracy of eight intraocular lens power calculation formulas for segmented multifocal intraocular lens.International journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer.PloS one · 2020Article
- Effect of anterior chamber depth on predictive accuracy of seven intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length less than 22 mm.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of anterior chamber depth (ACD) on the refractive outcomes of the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae in short, normal, long and extremely long eyes.
methodsThis retrospective study involved patients who had uncomplicated cataract surgery. Preoperative axial length (AL) was divided into four subgroups: short (< 22.00 mm), normal (22.00-24.49 mm), long (24.50-25.99 mm), extremely long (≥ 26.00 mm). Preoperative ACD was divided into three subgroups: < 2.5, 2.50-3.49, and ≥ 3.5 mm. Median absolute errors (MedAEs) predicted by the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae were compared with the Friedman test. Post-hoc analysis involved the Wilcoxon signed rank test with a Bonferroni adjustment. Correlations between ACD and the predictive refractive errors of the four formulas were analyzed.
resultsIn short eyes with an ACD < 2.5 mm, the Haigis formula revealed the highest MedAE. The difference in MedAE with the Hoffer Q formula (which had the lowest MedAE) was statistically significant (P = 0.002). In normal eyes, the Haigis formula significantly differed from the Holladay 1 (P = 0.002) and Hoffer Q (P = 0.005) formulae in the ACD < 2.5 mm group. In long eyes and extremely long eyes with an ACD ≥ 3.5 mm, the differences in MedAEs were statistically significant (P = 0.018, P = 0.001, respectively) and the Haigis formula had the lowest MedAEs in both subgroups (0.29 D, 0.30 D, respectively). In the total of 1,123 eyes, refractive errors predicted by the Haigis formula showed a significant negative correlation with the ACD (R2 = 0.002, P = 0.047).
conclusionsThe Hoffer Q formula is preferred over other formulae in short eyes with an ACD shallower than 2.5 mm. In short and normal eyes with an ACD < 2.5 mm the Haigis formula might underestimate ELP. The Haigis formula is the preferred choice in eyes with an AL ≥ 24.5 mm and an ACD ≥ 3.5 mm.
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.