ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Astigmatism Management with Astigmatism-Correcting Intraocular Lens Using Two Toric Calculators - A Comparative Case Series.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for error in refractive astigmatism after toric intraocular lens implantation in Chinese patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Astigmatism Management in Modern Cataract Surgery.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare refractive outcomes after phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation using two different toric calculators for initial astigmatism assessment in a real-world setting.
methodsThis was a retrospective, comparative, interventional case series. Patients over 30-year-old who underwent phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation (AcrySof
resultsThirty-two eyes of 32 patients were included in the final analysis. 0.1D for surgically induced astigmatism was used. Group 1 included 14 eyes assessed with the original (AcrySof) toric IOL calculator, and group 2 included 18 eyes assessed with the Barrett toric IOL calculator. In group 1, postoperative astigmatism less than -1.00D, -0.75 D, and -0.5D was achieved in 88.2%, 76.1% and 53.7% of eyes, respectively, while, in group 2, 89% eyes achieved postoperative residual astigmatism less than 0.5D and all eyes achieved postoperative residual astigmatism less than 0.75D. The proportion of patients with lower postoperative astigmatism was significantly higher in Group 2 (p< 0.05 by chi-square test), a pattern that still held when we divided patients into multiple groups. Vector analysis with the Alpins methods also supported better outcomes in the Barrett group (0.71 D vs 0.35 D).
conclusionThe Barrett Toric calculator resulted in better results in the prediction of residual astigmatism than original (AcrySof) toric calculators.
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.