ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparing the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using artificial intelligence and traditional formulas in highly myopic patients: a meta-analysis.International ophthalmology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Highly Myopic Eyes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Concurrent phakic intraocular lens explantation and phacoemulsification with IOL implantation: A retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of 12 IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- IOL power calculation in long eyes: Selection of the best axial length adjustement factor using the most common formulas.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Long-Term Refractive Outcomes and Visual Quality of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Implantation in High Myopic Patients: A Multimodal Evaluation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Effect of Segmented Optical Axial Length on the Performance of New-Generation Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Extremely Long Eyes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comment on Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmic Surgery: Current Applications and Expectations.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang−Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula’s accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive 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.