ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in patients with axial hyperopia.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Network meta-analysis of intraocular lens power calculation formulas based on artificial intelligence in short eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.Ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Editorial: Enhancing patient outcomes after cataract, corneal and refractive surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in short and long eyes.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and compare it with conventional IOL formulas. Methods: This was a prospective case series. Eyes with visually significant cataract and axial hyperopia (AL <22.0 mm) underwent IA-assisted phacoemulsification with posterior chamber IOL (Alcon AcrySof IQ). Postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was compared with predicted SE to calculate the outcomes with different formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal Ⅱ and Hill-RBF). Accuracy of intraoperative aberrometer was compared with other formulas in terms of mean absolute prediction error (MAE), percentage of patients within 0.5 D and 1 D of their target, and percentage of patients going into hyperopic shift. Results: Sixty-five eyes (57 patients) were included. In terms of MAE, both Hoffer Q (MAE = 0.30) and IA (MAE = 0.32) were significantly better than Haigis, SRK/T, and Barrett Universal Ⅱ (P < 0.05). Outcomes within ±0.5 D of the target were maximum with Hoffer Q (80%), superior to IA (Hoffer Q > IA > Holladay 2 > Hill-RBF > Haigis > SRK/T > Barrett Universal Ⅱ). Hoffer Q resulted in minimum hyperopic shift (30.76%) followed by Hill-RBF (38.46%), Holladay 2 (38.46%), Haigis (43.07%), and then IA (46.15%), SRK/T (50.76%) and Barrett Universal Ⅱ (53.84%). Conclusion: IA was more effective (statistically significant) in predicting IOL power than Haigis, SRK/T, and Barrett Universal Ⅱ although it was equivalent to Hoffer Q. Hoffer Q was superior to all formulas in terms of percentage of patients within 0.5 D of their target refractions and percentage of patients going into hyperopic shift.
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.