ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of capsular tension ring implantation on intraocular lens calculation formula selection for long axial myopia.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Improved IOL Power Calculation With Femtosecond Laser Enhanced Refractive Outcome Prediction.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Traditional and AI-Based Methods: Barrett Universal II vs. Ladas Super Formula in IOL Power Calculation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Reliability of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Hyperopic Refractive Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Intraocular lens calculation formula selection for short eyes: based on axial length and anterior chamber depth.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- A Multi Comparison of 8 Different Intraocular Lens Biometry Formulae, Including a Machine Learning Thin Lens Formula (MM) and an Inbuilt Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Ray Tracing Formula.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Improving the accuracy of the SRK/T formula in Chinese with implanting less than 10 D IOL calculated by the SRK/T formula: the SRK/T-Li formula.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- The Zhu-Lu formula: a machine learning-based intraocular lens power calculation formula for highly myopic eyes.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2023Article
- Comparing the Accuracy of the Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function, Emmetropia Verifying Optical, and Ladas Super Formula Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Comparison of newer Kane formula with Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical and Barrett Universal II for calculation of intraocular lens power in Indian eyes.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- 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
- Comments on: Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Commentary: Era of endless possibilities-Looking for a near-perfect intraocular lens calculating formula.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of three newer generation formulae (Barrett Universal II, EVO, Hill-RBF 2.0) for calculation of power of two standard IOLs-the Acrysof IQ and Tecnis ZCB00 across all axial lengths. Methods: In this retrospective series, 206 eyes of 206 patients, operated for cataract surgery with above two IOLs over the last 6 months, were included in the study. Preoperative biometry measurements were obtained from LenstarLS900. By using recommended lens constants, the mean error for each formula was calculated and compared. Then, the optimized IOL constants were calculated to reduce the mean error to zero. Mean and median absolute errors were calculated for all eyes and separately for short (AL<22.5 mm), medium (22.5-24.5 mm), and long eyes (>24.5 mm). Absolute errors and percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were compared. Results: Prediction error with using recommended lens constants was significantly lower in the Barrett Universal II formula as compared to the other two formulae. However, after optimizing lens constants, there were no significant differences in the absolute errors between the three formulae. The formulae ranked by mean absolute error were as follows: Barrett Universal II (0.304 D), EVO (0.317 D), and Hill-RBF (0.322) D. There were no significant differences between absolute errors in the three formulae in each of the short-, medium-, and long-eye subgroups. Conclusion: With proper lens constant optimization, the Barrett Universal II, EVO, and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulae were equally accurate in predicting IOL power across the entire range of axial lengths.
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.