ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Predictability of Residual Postoperative Astigmatism After Implantation of a Toric Intraocular Lens Using Two Different Calculators.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- 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
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Modern Toric Intraocular Lens Formulas Based on Anterior Corneal Measurements.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Astigmatism Calculation with the Barrett, Panacea, and enVista Toric Calculators.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Barrett and Emmetropia Verifying Optical Toric Calculators.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Efficacy of a One-Piece Aberration Neutral Hydrophobic Acrylic Toric Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
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 compare predictability of postoperative refractive astigmatism (RA) using the Emmetropic Verifying Optical (EVO) Toric Formula v2.0 to one that accounts only for anterior corneal astigmatism.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of de-identified data from a clinical trial including 9 sites across the United States. Preoperative biometry was used to predict postoperative RA with the implanted toric IOL using legacy enVista and EVO online calculators. The RA prediction error was computed between back-calculated postoperative RA and predicted residual RA. Outcome measures included vector (centroid) and arithmetic mean RA prediction error.
resultsComparison of calculators was based on 109 eyes, 97 (89%) of which were implanted with a toric IOL with an effective astigmatism power of 1.4 D or less. Centroid of the RA prediction errors was 0.37 D @ 178 and 0.17 D @ 090 for the legacy and EVO calculators, respectively (p < 0.0001). The proportion of eyes with an absolute RA prediction error ≤0.5 was 47.3% and 49.1% (p = 0.78), while the proportion of eyes ≤1.0 D was 82.7% and 89.1% (p = 0.03). Differences in the proportions ≤0.5 D existed for WTR (p = 0.015) but not ATR (p = 0.75) eyes. The proportion in which orientation of the predicted RA (ATR, WTR, or oblique) matched the actual RA was 62% and 78% for legacy and EVO calculators, respectively (p = 0.0029).
conclusionThe EVO Toric Formula v2.0 out-performed the legacy calculator with regards to predictions in eyes with low astigmatism.
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.