ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2021
Intraocular lens power calculation formulas accuracy in combined phacovitrectomy: an 8-formulas comparison study.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens formulas in IOL power calculation for cataract extraction combined with vitrectomy.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Biometric Changes and Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula Accuracy in Delayed Cataract Surgery Cases.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Accuracy of 8 Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Eyes Undergoing Combined Phacovitrectomy.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of 10 biometric formulas in combined phacovitrectomy for different underlying retinal pathology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Review of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Based on Artificial Intelligence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Accuracy of Axial Length Measurements by Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers in Macula-off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Influence of Pilocarpine Eyedrops on the Ocular Biometric Parameters and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.Journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Axial length, vitreoretinal pathology, and anterior chamber depth can predict postoperative refractive outcomes in phacovitrectomy/silicone oil removal.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Residual refractive errors in pseudophakic eyes and related factors: a population-based study.International 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane and PEARL-DGS) in patients submitted to combined phacovitrectomy for vitreomacular (VM) interface disorders.
methodsRetrospective chart review study including axial-length matched patients submitted to phacoemulsification alone (Group 1) and combined phacovitrectomy (Group 2). Using optimized constants in both groups, refraction prediction error of each formula was calculated for each eye. The optimised constants from Group 1 were also applied to patients of Group 2 - Group 3. Outcome measures included the mean prediction error (ME) and its standard deviation (SD), mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors, in diopters (D), and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D.
resultsA total of 220 eyes were included (Group 1: 100; Group 2: 120). In Group 1, the difference in formulas absolute error was significative (p = 0.005). The Kane Formula had the lowest MAE (0.306) and MedAE (0.264). In Group 2, Kane had the overall best performance, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0 and Barrett Universal II. The ME of all formulas in both Groups 1 and 2 were 0.000 (p = 0.934; p = 0.971, respectively). In Group 3, a statistically significant myopic shift was observed for each formula (p < 0.001).
conclusionSurgeons must be careful regarding IOL power selection in phacovitrectomy considering the systematic myopic shift evidenced-constant optimization may help eliminating such error. Moreover, newly introduced formulas and calculation methods may help us achieving increasingly better refractive outcomes both in cataract surgery alone and phacovitrectomy.
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.