ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Double peak axial length measurement signal in cataract patients with epiretinal membrane.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automatic segmentation of calibration device boundaries on ophthalmic optical biometry instruments in optical coherence tomography images.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of axial length (AL) measurement for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in patients with cataract and epiretinal membrane (ERM).
methodsThis prospective, cross-sectional study was performed in cataract patients with ERM. All subjects were sent for standard optical biometry, prepared for cataract surgery. Signals of AL measurement were detected as double peaks and recorded as AL1 (first peak), and AL2 (second peak). The IOL power was calculated from AL1 and AL2, and reported as IOL1 and IOL2. The IOL2 was chosen for cataract surgery in all cases. Postoperative predictive errors were compared between IOL1 and IOL2.
resultsThirty-seven eyes from 37 patients were included. Mean AL1 was significantly shorter than AL2 (23.13 ± 1.28 vs. 23.60 ± 1.34 mm, p < 0.001), resulting in higher power of IOL1 than IOL2 (mean difference was 1.53 ± 0.96 diopters, p < 0.001). At 3-months post-operation, twenty-nine eyes (78.4%) (95% CI 62.8%-88.6%) showed refractive error within ± 0.5 diopter and all eyes were within ± 1.0 diopter. Postoperative predictive errors including mean arithmetic error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) of IOL2 were significantly lower than those of IOL1 (ME: IOL1 vs. IOL2, -0.94 ± 0.91 vs. 0.08 ± 0.51; MAE: 0.97 ± 0.88 vs. 0.39 ± 0.33 diopter, all p < 0.001).
conclusionsAL measurement in ERM can be detected as a double peak signal during biometric measurement. The IOL power calculated from the first and second peak signals is significantly different. However, the IOL power derived from the second peak signal provides better refractive outcomes. The results suggest that the second peak signal represents an accurate AL measurement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36149619What 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.