ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Comparison of Barrett and Emmetropia Verifying Optical Toric Calculators.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Six Toric IOL Power Calculation Formulas, Including Four Available on the ESCRS Online Calculator.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Modern Toric Intraocular Lens Formulas Based on Anterior Corneal Measurements.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- IOL Calculators Variability in Toric Lens Planning: A Retrospective Paired Comparison of the Planning Discrepancies Between the Johnson & Johnson Toric Calculator and ESCRS-Hosted Engines.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of several toric intraocular lens calculators for predicting postoperative refractive astigmatism in cataract surgery: a real-world study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Ten Intraocular Lens Formulas in Spherical Equivalent of Toric Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the Barrett (BTC) and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) Toric Calculators' performance with regards to prediction of residual post-operative astigmatism after cataract surgery.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of de-identified data that was collected as part of a prospective multicenter clinical trial in which 109 eyes from 109 patients were implanted with a monofocal toric intraocular lens (IOL). Post-operative biometry was used to calculate the predicted post-operative residual astigmatism for each eye using the two different calculators. The vector difference between the actual and predicted residual astigmatism was calculated.
resultsThe mean absolute astigmatism prediction errors were 0.59 ± 0.38 D and 0.59 ± 0.36 D for the BTC and EVO calculators, respectively (p = 0.98). The centroid of the prediction errors were 0.18 D @ 89° ± 0.68 D and 0.20 D @ 89° ± 0.66 D, respectively (p = 0.21). The proportion of eyes in which the astigmatism prediction error was ≤0.5 D was 50% for BTC and 46% for EVO (p = 0.28). The proportion of eyes in which the post-operative astigmatism orientation was correctly predicted as being against-the-rule, with-the-rule, or oblique was 81% for BTC and 77% for EVO (p = 0.15).
conclusionThe Barrett and Emmetropia Verifying Optical Toric Calculators had similar performance with regards to their astigmatism prediction accuracy.
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.