ArticlePloS one2020
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distribution characteristics and influencing factors of three-dimensional lens parameters in patients with age-related cataracts.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparing Refractive Prediction Accuracy of IOL Master 700 and Sirius Utilizing the Barrett Universal II Formula.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Accuracy comparison of six intraocular lens formulas using total and standard keratometry measurements with the iolmaster 700.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Modification of the Barrett Universal II formula by the combination of the actual total corneal power and virtual axial length.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Effect of optional biometric parameters in the Kane formula on intraocular lens power calculation.PloS one · 2023Article
- Influence of the invariant refraction assumption in studies of formulas for monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens power calculation.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Different lens power calculation formulas for the prediction of refractive outcome after phacoemulsification with silicone oil removal.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Prediction Error Stabilization and Long-Term Standard Results with a Monofocal Intraocular Lens.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Refractive prediction by various intraocular lens formulas using optical biometry and effect of ocular parameters on their accuracy.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula integrated into a commercially available optical biometer when using a preloaded single-piece intraocular lens.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Lens thickness and associated ocular biometric factors among cataract patients in Shanghai.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Article
- Accuracy of theoretical IOL formulas for Panoptix intraocular lens according to axial length.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Does Every Calculation Formula Fit for All Types of Intraocular Lenses? Optimization of Constants for Tecnis ZA9003 and ZCB00 Is Necessary.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for AcrySof SN60WF versus Tecnis ZCB00 Intraocular Lenses.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements.
methodsThe study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed.
resultsThere were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT.
conclusionsOverall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.
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.