ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Using the First-Eye Back-Calculated Effective Lens Position to Improve Refractive Outcome of the Second Eye.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing IOL Calculators with Deep Learning Prediction of Total Corneal Astigmatism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Investigation of the myopic outcomes of the newer intraocular lens power calculation formulas in Korean patients with long eyes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas after SMILE in Chinese myopic eyes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study is a retrospective, monocentric case series that aims to compare the second-eye IOL power calculation precision using the back-calculated lens position (LP) as a lens position predictor versus using a predetermined correction factor (CF) for thin- and thick-lens IOL calculation formulas. A set of 878 eyes from 439 patients implanted with Finevision IOLs (BVI PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) with both operated eyes was used as a training set to create Haigis-LP and PEARL-LP formulas, using the back-calculated lens position of the contralateral eye as an effective lens position (ELP) predictor. Haigis-CF, Barrett-CF, and PEARL-CF formulas using an optimized correction factor based on the prediction error of the first eye were also designed. A different set of 1500 eyes from 1500 patients operated in the same center was used to compare the basal and enhanced formula performances. The IOL power calculation for the second eye was significantly enhanced by adapting the formulas using the back-calculated ELP of the first eye or by using a correction factor based on the prediction error of the first eye, the latter giving slightly higher precision. A decrease in the mean absolute error of 0.043D was observed between the basal PEARL and the PEARL-CF formula (p < 0.001). The optimal correction factor was close to 60% of the first-eye prediction error for every formula. A fixed correction factor of 60% of the postoperative refractive error of the first operated eye improves the second-eye refractive outcome better than the methods based on the first eye’s effective lens position back-calculation. A significant interocular biometric dissimilarity precludes the enhancement of the second-eye IOL power calculation according to the first-eye results.
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.