ArticleScientific reports2023
Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Spherical equivalent prediction analysis in intraocular lens power calculations using Barrett Universal II formula variations.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- The predictive value of the orientation and offset of angle α and angle κ for visual outcomes after trifocal intraocular lens implantation in an Asian cohort.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Observational
- Effectiveness of a probiotic combination on the neurodevelopment of the very premature infant.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the accuracy of the modern biometric formulas in cataract surgery according to axial length and lens type. It is a Cross-sectional design from 365 patients who underwent cataract surgery. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay I formulas were extracted from the IOLMaster 500 biometer. Barret formulas and the Kane were obtained from the online calculator. Patients are classified according to axial length (AL) into three groups: AL ≤ 22 mm, 22 < AL < 25 mm, and AL ≥ 25 mm. In addition, implanted intraocular lenses are classified as Monofocal, extended focus, and Multifocal. There are no significant differences between the formulas. In short, the Kane formula was more accurate than the other biometric formulas. Kane and SRK/T were the most accurate in monofocal lenses, with the lowest residual refractive error. The Holladay I formula obtained the lowest mean absolute error with the highest number of eyes with minimum residual ± 0.5Dp in the multifocal lenses in the 22 < AL < 25 mm eyes. In the long AL eyes, SRK/T and Kane's obtained the lowest mean absolute error and the best percentage of eyes with ± 0.5Dp of residual refractive error. There are no significant differences between the formulas. However Kane's formula has shown high accuracy, especially in short and long eyes with monofocal lenses.
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.