ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Comparison of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 29.0 mm.
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 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas based on artificial intelligence in highly myopic eyes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Advances in cataract surgery: is a new era on the horizon?Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Traditional and AI-Based Methods: Barrett Universal II vs. Ladas Super Formula in IOL Power Calculation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Accuracy of 14 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- The Role of Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Extreme Axial Myopia: A Case Report and Literature Review.Cureus · 2023Article
- Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the accuracy of six different formulas (Emmetropia Verifying Optical version 2.0, Kane, SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for extremely long eyes.
methodsRetrospective case-series. Seventy-three eyes with axial length (AL) ≥ 29.0 mm and underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery with Rayner (Hove, UK) 920H IOL implantation from January 2018 to March 2020 were included. Prediction errors (PE) were calculated and compared between different formulas to evaluate the accuracy of formulas. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with the PE.
resultsThe Kane formula had mean prediction error close to zero (- 0.01 ± 0.51 D, P = 0.841), whereas the EVO 2.0, SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen formulas produced hyperopic outcomes (all P < 0.001). The median absolute error [inter-quartile range] produced by the EVO 2.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas showed no significant difference (0.33 D [0.48], 0.30 D [0.44], 0.34 D [0.39], 0.29 D [0.37], respectively, pairwise comparison P > 0.05), but was significantly lower than that of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas (0.85 D [0.66], 0.80 D [0.54], respectively, pairwise comparison P < 0.001). The AL and the PE produced by the SRK/T formula were significantly positively correlated in extremely myopic eyes (β = 0.248, P < 0.001), whereas the trend was not demonstrated in other formulas.
conclusionsFor cataract patients with axial length greater than 29.0 mm, the accuracy of the EVO 2.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas is comparable and significantly better than that of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas.
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.