Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36385570›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2023

Accuracy of newer generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas in pediatric cataract patients.

Lei Lin, Jiayan Fang, Weijie Sun, Siyi Gu, Liming Xu, Siping Chen, Pingjun Chang, Yun-E Zhao

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

8 authors.

Lei Lin *Eye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China.
Jiayan Fang *Eye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China.
Weijie SunEye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China.
Siyi GuEye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China.
Liming XuEye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China.
Siping ChenEye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China.
Pingjun ChangEye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China.
Yun-E ZhaoEye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325102, China. zyehzeye@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-5715

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81870680pioneer and leading goose R&D program of Zhejiang 2022C03070the Provincial Construction Project of Zhejiang WKJ-ZJ-2135Zhejiang Provincial Program of China for the Cultivation of Health Leading Talents Yun-e Zhao
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of newer generation intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (EVO 2.0 and Kane) with established formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis and SRK/T) in pediatric cataract patients.

methodsRetrospective study. We enrolled 110 eyes (110 patients) in Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. All patients underwent uneventful cataract surgery and implanted with posterior chamber IOL in the bag. We calculate the mean prediction errors (PE) and percentage within 1 diopter (D) at 1 month to assess the accuracy, and percentage > 2D was defined as prediction accident. Then, we performed subgroup analysis according to age and axial length (AL).

resultsThe mean age and AL were 37.45 ± 23.28 months and 21.16 ± 1.29 mm. The mean PE for all patients was as follows: Barrett (- 0.30), EVO (0.18), Haigis (- 0.74), Kane (- 0.36), and SRK/T (0.58), p < 0.001. In addition, EVO and SRK/T formulas were relatively accurate in patients younger than 24 months and with AL ≤ 21 mm, while EVO got lower prediction accident rate than SRK/T (3/41 vs 8/41, 4/52 vs 5/52). Moreover, Barrett, EVO, and Kane formulas achieved better accuracy and lower prediction accident rate in patients older than 24 months and with AL > 21 mm (both > 51/69 and 43/58, and < 3/69 and 3/58).

conclusionsIn patients older than 24 months and with AL > 21 mm, Barrett, EVO, and Kane formulas were relatively accurate, while in patients younger than 24 months and with AL ≤ 21 mm, EVO was more accurate, followed by SRK/T formula.

Indexed as

CataractLenses, IntraocularPhacoemulsificationAxial Length, EyeBiometryChildHumansOptics and PhotonicsRefraction, OcularRetrospective StudiesVisual AcuityCalculation formulasEVO 2.0 formulaIntraocular lens powerKane formulaPediatric cataract

Identifiers

PMID36385570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.