ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Refractive Accuracy of Barrett True-K vs Intraoperative Aberrometry for IOL Power Calculation in Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Premium Intraocular Lens Implantation After Laser Vision Correction: An Updated Narrative Review of Biometry, IOL Selection, Visual Outcomes, and Clinical Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of Ocular Wavefront in Seated and Supine Positions Using a Hand-Held Hartmann-Shack Aberrometer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.Ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Changes in cataract and refractive surgery practice patterns among JSCRS members over the past 20 years.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Bilateral Light-Adjustable Lens Implantation in a Patient With 50-Cut Radial Keratotomy.Cornea open · 2024Article
- Accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry versus modern preoperative methods in post-myopic laser vision correction eyes undergoing cataract surgery with capsular tension ring placement.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Accuracy of the Majority Voting Method with Multiple IOL Power Formulae.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Refractive Prediction Accuracy Using Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Barrett True-K Formula Following Corneal Refractive Surgery.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Intraoperative aberrometry compared to preoperative Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power selection in eyes with prior refractive surgery.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Refractive Outcomes Following Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Post-Myopic LASIK and PRK Eyes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the refractive predictability of intraoperative aberrometry (IA, ORA, Alcon) and Barrett True-K/Universal II formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes.
methodsRetrospective study of normal and post-corneal refractive surgery eyes that underwent cataract surgery with IA at tertiary academic center. Preoperatively, IOL power calculations were performed using Barrett Universal II (normal eyes) or Barrett True-K (post-corneal refractive surgery eyes) formulas. Intraoperatively, aphakic IA measurements were used for IOL power calculations. Mean absolute refractive prediction error (MAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated. Refractive predictability was also evaluated in short, normal, and long eyes.
resultsTwo hundred and seventy-three eyes were included in the analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the MAE of preoperative formulas and IA for post-hyperopic laser vision correction (LVC), post-myopic LVC, post-radial keratotomy (RK) and normal eyes. For prediction error within ±0.5 D in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes, range of agreement between Barrett True-K and IA ranged from 28% (7/25) of the time in post-RK eyes to 49% (40/81) of the time in post-hyperopic LVC; the corresponding value for Barrett Universal II/IA was 62% (64/103) in normal eyes. When there was disagreement, IA outperformed Barrett True-K in post-hyperopic LVC eyes and Barrett formula outperformed IA in post-myopic LVC, post-RK, and normal eyes.
conclusionIA appears to be comparable to Barrett formulas for IOL power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes. In post-hyperopic LVC, IA yields better results compared to Barrett True-K formula; in real-life scenarios, IA reveals statistical advantage over the Barrett True-K no history formula for eyes post-hyperopic LVC.
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.