ArticleScientific reports2022
Prediction of residual astigmatism in cataract surgery at different diameter zones using optical biometry measurement.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Corneal astigmatism magnitude, axis distribution, and ocular biometric characteristics in cataract surgery candidates: a tertiary center study from the Western Black Sea region of Turkey.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Agreement of ocular biometry and evaluation of IOL calculation using a parameter‑hybrid strategy: a comparison of CASIA2, IOL Master 700, and OA2000 in cataract patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Artificial Tear Instillation-Induced Changes in Corneal Topography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Predicting Residual Astigmatism in Cataract Surgery.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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
The studies for astigmatism prediction error at different diameters using optical biometry are scant. We investigated patients who underwent cataract surgery with monofocal, nontoric intraocular lens (IOL) from 2017 through 2019 in a medical center. Patients with prior refractive surgeries, corneal opacity, or surgical complications were excluded. Corneal astigmatism (CA) was measured using AL-Scan at 2.4- and 3.3-mm diameter zones and calculated using the Barrett toric calculator preoperatively and postoperatively. The mean absolute error and centroid prediction error for the two zones were computed using double-angle plots. In total, 101 eyes of 76 patients were analyzed. Mean patient age was 68.7 ± 9.3 years and mean preoperative CA power was 0.7 ± 0.5 D. The overall centroid prediction error a 3.3 mm (0.09 ± 0.58 D@25) was significantly lower than that at 2.4 mm (0.09 ± 0.68 D@87) on the X-axis (P = 0.003). The 3.3-mm measurement also had a lower centroid prediction error than the 2.4-mm did for eyes with against-the-rule (ATR) and oblique astigmatism (P = 0.024; 0.002 on X-axis, respectively). The 3.3-mm measurement provided a more accurate CA estimation than the 2.4-mm did, particularly for ATR astigmatism. Diameter zone and astigmatism type should be considered crucial to precise astigmatism calculation.
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.