Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35080690›Full record

SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2022

Comparing the accuracy of new intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes after cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yu Luo, Hongyu Li, Lixiong Gao, Jinlin Du, Wenqian Chen, Yi Gao, Zi Ye, Zhaohui Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Basic aspects of IOL calculation].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Intraocular lens power calculation formulas: a scientometric analysis.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Analysis of accuracy of twelve intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes with axial hyperopia.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
  13. Intraocular lens power calculation in challenging cases.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yu Luo *Medical School of Chinese People's Liberation Army, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China.
Hongyu Li *Medical School of Chinese People's Liberation Army, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China.
Lixiong GaoMedical School of Chinese People's Liberation Army, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China.
Jinlin DuMedical School of Chinese People's Liberation Army, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China.
Wenqian ChenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yi GaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China.
Zi YeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China. yeziclover@163.com.
Zhaohui LiMedical School of Chinese People's Liberation Army, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China. zhaohuili202104@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4132-658X

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81870640National Natural Science Foundation of China 82070937
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCalculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power in short eyes for cataract surgery has been a challenge. A meta-analysis was conducted to identify, among several classic and new IOL power calculation formulae, which obtains the best accuracy.

methodsAll studies aiming at comparing the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulae in short eyes were searched up in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from Jan. 2011 to Mar. 2021. Primary outcomes were the percentages of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.25D, ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D.

resultsTotally 1,476 eyes from 14 studies were enrolled in comparison of 13 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay1, Holladay2, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Okulix, Olsen, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T and T2). Pearl-DGS had the highest percentage within ± 0.25D. In the ± 0.5D range, Pearl-DGS obtained the highest percentage again, and it was significantly higher than Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay1, Holladay2 and Olsen (P = 0.001, P = 0.02, P = 0.0003, P = 0.01, P = 0.007, P = 0.05, respectively). In the ± 1.0D range, Okulix possessed the highest percentage, and it was significantly higher than Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Hoffer Q and Holladay2 (P = 0.0005, P = 0.03, P = 0.003, P = 0.02, respectively).

conclusionThe new generation formulae, based on artificial intelligence or ray-tracing principle, are more accurate than the convergence formulae. Pearl-DGS and Okulix are the two most accurate formulae in short eyes.

Indexed as

CataractLenses, IntraocularPhacoemulsificationRefractive ErrorsArtificial IntelligenceAxial Length, EyeBiometryHumansLens Implantation, IntraocularOptics and PhotonicsRefraction, OcularRetrospective StudiesFormulaeIOL power calculationMeta-analysisShort eyes

Identifiers

PMID35080690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.