ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2019
Effect of anterior chamber depth on predictive accuracy of seven intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length less than 22 mm.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Six Toric IOL Power Calculation Formulas, Including Four Available on the ESCRS Online Calculator.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
- Anterior Segment Characteristics and Risk Factors for Primary Angle Closure Disease With Long Axial Lengths: The Handan Eye Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Observational
- Response to comments on: Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate whether different anterior chamber depth (ACD) affects the predictive accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length (AL) less than 22 mm.
methodsEighty-five eyes of 85 patients with AL less than 22 mm were included in this retrospective study, which were divided into three groups: Group 1, ACD less than 2.4 mm; Group 2, ACD between 2.4 and 2.9 mm; and Group 3, ACD greater than 2.9 mm. Optical biometry with partial coherence interferometry was performed in all cases. The median absolute error (MedAE) was compared by Friedman's test, using the optimized lens constant, among seven formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T) in each group.
resultsFriedman's test showed no significant difference in MedAE among all formulas in Groups 1 and 3. However, as the Haigis formula had the highest MedAE and lowest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 Diopter, it is least preferred in Group 1. On the contrary, in Group 3 it fared the best, having the least MedAE and highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 Diopter. In Group 2, Friedman's test gave significant difference, and post-hoc analysis showed statistical superiority of Haigis over the Holladay 1 (
conclusionConsidering the ACD in eyes with AL less than 22 mm, Haigis is the preferred formula while SRK/T proved to be the worst formula in Groups 2 and 3.
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.