ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula integrated into a commercially available optical biometer when using a preloaded single-piece intraocular lens.
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 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.
- Comparative Analysis of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas (Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function, and Ladas Super Formula): Which One Is More Accurate?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Functional outcomes and quality of life after AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens implantation in a real-world study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comment on: Accuracy of the Barrett universal II formula integrated into a commercially available optical biometer when using a preloaded single-piece intraocular lens.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Response to comment on: Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula integrated into a commercially-available optical biometer when using a preloaded single-piece intraocular lens.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the commonly used formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) selection using IOLMaster
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed that included patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with in-the-bag insertion of Vivinex™ iSert
resultsThis study included 590 eyes of 590 patients. Overall, the four IOL calculation formulas appeared to be similarly accurate. In the long AL subgroup, the BU-II formula had a significantly lower absolute error (AE) than the Holladay 1 formula. In the low-power subgroup, the BU-II formula had a significantly lower AE than the Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas. On the other hand, in the high-power subgroup, the BU-Ⅱ formula was significantly less accurate than the SRK/T formula and also appeared to be worse than the Holladay 1 formula (P = 0.052).
conclusionThe BU-II formula might be less accurate when using a Vivinex™ iSert
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.