ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022
Comparison of Formula-Specific Factors and Artificial Intelligence Formulas with Axial Length Adjustments in Bilateral Cataract Patients with Long Axial Length.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of traditional and AI-based intraocular lens power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- 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
- Accuracy of 20 Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Medium-Long Eyes.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Comparison of the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas after SMILE in Chinese myopic eyes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Using the First-Eye Back-Calculated Effective Lens Position to Improve Refractive Outcome of the Second Eye.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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate and compare the effectiveness for reducing the prediction error (PE) of the second eye using formula-specific factors, artificial intelligence (AI) formulas (PEARL-DGS and Kane), and the Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) methods in bilateral cataract patients with long axial length (AL).
methodsA total of 98 patients with long AL who underwent sequential bilateral cataract surgeries were retrospectively enrolled. The second-eye IOL power was calculated by the formula-specific factors, AI formulas, and CMAL methods when the first eye suffered from refraction surprise. The correction factors of eight formulas were calculated by regression analysis.
resultsThere was a significant correlation between bilateral preoperative biometric parameters (P < 0.05) as well as bilateral PE (P < 0.05). The Kane formula displayed the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) and highest proportion of PE within ± 0.50 and ± 1.00 D compared with other formulas for the first eye. For the second-eye refinement, all three methods could reduce the second-eye MedAE. The formula-specific correction factors were 0.250, 0.331, 0.343, 0.394, 0.409, 0.452, 0.503, and 0.520 for Kane, Barrett Universal II (BUII), PEARL-DGS, Holladay 2, Holladay 1, Haigis, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T, respectively. The new AI-based Kane and PEARL-DGS with or without the CMAL methods could improve the refractive outcomes of the second eye in sequential bilateral cataract patients with long AL. The Kane, BUII, and PEARL-DGS with specific correction factors displayed higher accuracy compared with the other two methods (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe new AI-based Kane and PEARL-DGS with or without the CMAL methods could improve the refractive outcomes of the second eye in sequential bilateral cataract patients with long AL. Notably, the Kane, PEARL-DGS, and BUII with specific correction factors displayed higher 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.