ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Influence of the invariant refraction assumption in studies of formulas for monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens power calculation.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Evidence-Based Pathway from Functional Classification to Intraocular Lens Specialization: A Case Example Applying the PECO Framework.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Biometric Factors in the VRF-G Formula for IOL Power Calculation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the influence in paired design studies of formulae comparison for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation of using a single formula for deciding the implanted power with monofocal (mIOL) and multifocal (MIOL) lenses.
designRetrospective observational.
methodsNinety-six right eyes were retrospectively analyzed. Eyes were assigned in two independent groups, SG and HG, depending on the formula used for deciding the implanted power, SRK-T (n = 54) and Haigis (n = 42), respectively. Median absolute prediction error (MedAE) was evaluated between independent samples (SRK-T in SG vs Haigis in HG) and between paired samples (SRK-T vs Haigis in both SG and HG). Percentages of eyes within a specific range of prediction error (PE) were also calculated for both, the standard steps and the clinically relevant steps.
resultsMedAE difference was lower than 0.09 D between both formulas for the comparison of independent samples in the mIOL (p = 0.62) and MIOL (p = 0.83) groups. However, paired samples resulted in better MedAE for SRK-T in the SG (0.14 D lower, p = 0.003) and for Haigis in the HG (0.07 D lower, p = 0.015), but only in the mIOL group. These small differences were also manifested, but not reaching statistical significance (p > 0.05), in the percentage of eyes achieving a specific range of PE, especially in the mIOL group.
conclusionsA small superiority for the formula used for selecting the final implanted IOL power can appear in studies following current standards. These studies should clearly specify which formula was used for selecting the implanted power.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35132509What 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.