Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35676698›Full record

ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2022

Application of total keratometry in ten intraocular lens power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.

Ling Wei, Kaiwen Cheng, Wenwen He, Xiangjia Zhu, Yi Lu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Effect of Posterior Keratometry on the Accuracy of 10 Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas: Standard Keratometry versus Total Keratometry.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ling Wei *Department of Ophthalmology and Eye Institute, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200031, China.
Kaiwen Cheng *Department of Ophthalmology and Eye Institute, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200031, China.
Wenwen HeDepartment of Ophthalmology and Eye Institute, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200031, China.
Xiangjia ZhuDepartment of Ophthalmology and Eye Institute, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200031, China. zhuxiangjia1982@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5588-1667
Yi LuDepartment of Ophthalmology and Eye Institute, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200031, China. luyieent@163.com.
Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81670835National Natural Science Foundation of China 81870642National Natural Science Foundation of China 81970780National Natural Science Foundation of China 82122017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe accuracy of using total keratometry (TK) value in recent IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes remained unknown.

methodsHighly myopic patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery were prospectively enrolled in this prospective comparative study. At one month postoperatively, standard deviation (SD) of the prediction errors (PEs), mean and median absolute error (MedAE) of 103 highly myopic eyes were back-calculated and compared among ten formulas, including XGboost, RBF 3.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Cooke K6, Haigis, SRK/T, and Wang-Koch modifications of Haigis and SRK/T formulas, using either TK or standard keratometry (K) value.

resultsIn highly myopic eyes, despite good agreement between TK and K (P > 0.05), larger differences between the two were associated with smaller central corneal thickness (P < 0.05). As to the refractive errors, TK method showed no differences compared to K method. The XGBoost, RBF 3.0 and Kane ranked top three when considering SDs of PEs. Using TK value, the XGboost calculator was comparable with the RBF 3.0 formula (P > 0.05), which both presented smaller MedAEs than others (all P < 0.05). As for the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D or ± 0.75 D of PE, the XGBoost TK showed comparable percentages with the RBF 3.0 TK formula (74.76% vs. 66.99%, or 90.29% vs. 87.38%, P > 0.05), and statistically larger percentages than the other eight formulas (P < 0.05).

conclusionsHighly myopic eyes with thinner corneas tend to have larger differences between TK and K. The XGboost enhancement calculator and RBF 3.0 formula using TK showed the most promising outcomes in highly myopic eyes.

Indexed as

Cataract surgeryHigh myopiaIOL power calculationTotal keratometry

Identifiers

PMID35676698
PMCPMC9178866
OpenAlexW4281643657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.