ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2020
Accuracy of eight intraocular lens power calculation formulas for segmented multifocal intraocular lens.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of eight intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with ciliary sulcus implantation.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The Zhu-Lu formula: a machine learning-based intraocular lens power calculation formula for highly myopic eyes.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2023Article
- Agreements' profile of Scheimpflug-based optical biometer with gold standard partial coherence interferometry.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Comparison of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 29.0 mm.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Machine learning adaptation of intraocular lens power calculation for a patient group.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the accuracy of eight different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for a segmented multifocal IOL.
methodsA total of 53 eyes of 41 adult cataract patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation with the SBL-3 segmented multifocal IOL between January 1, 2017 and January 31, 2019 were included in this retrospective study. Preoperative biometry measurements were obtained using an IOL Master. Manifest refraction was performed at least 4wk postoperatively. Accuracy of the eight formulas [Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T] was analyzed.
resultsUsing current lens constants, all formulas exhibited errors of slight myopic shift in refractive prediction. The Barrett Universal II formula had a significantly lower median absolute error (MedAE) than did Holladay 1 (
conclusionAll eight formulas tend to result in a myopic shift when using current lens constants. Optimized lens constants improve the accuracy of these formulas among adult Chinese patients.
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.