ArticleBMC ophthalmology2021
Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens in patients with and without prior history of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction of Trifocal or Trifocal Toric IOLs in Chinese Cataract Patients: Focus on Near Vision at 33 cm.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- A Comparative Study of the Effect of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery on Corneal Astigmatism in Post-LASIK Eyes and Virgin Eyes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- A Novel Role for Corneal Pachymetry in Planning Cataract Surgery by Determining Changes in Spherical Equivalent Resulting from a Previous LASIK Treatment.Journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
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
backgroundIntraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. STUDY
designRetrospective study.
methodsPost-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations.
resultsThis study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing (P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL (P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero (P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.02), Barrett true K (P = 0.03), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.03), Barrett True K (P = 0.02), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively (P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL).
conclusionsThe ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.
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.