ArticleEye (London, England)2024
The predictive accuracy of Barrett toric calculator using measured posterior corneal astigmatism derived from swept source-OCT and Scheimpflug camera.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
- Measured corneal astigmatism vs. predicted refractive astigmatism in determining astigmatism correction in cataract patients with low astigmatism.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Calculators with Predicted and Measured Posterior Corneal Astigmatism Across Different Types of Astigmatism.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Astigmatism Management in Modern Cataract Surgery.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the performance of Barrett toric calculator incorporated with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam HR versus predicted PCA.
methodsThe predicted residual astigmatism using Barrett toric IOL calculator with predicted PCA, measured PCA from IOL Master 700 and measured PCA from Pentacam were calculated with the preoperative keratometry and intended IOL axis with modification. The vector analysis was performed to calculate the mean absolute prediction error (MAE), the centroid of the prediction error and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D.
resultsIn 57 eyes of 57 patients with mean age of 70.42 ± 10.75 years, the MAE among the three calculation methods were 0.59 ± 0.38 D (Predicted PCA), 0.60 ± 0.38 D (Measured PCA from IOL Master 700) and 0.60 ± 0.36 D (Measured PCA from Pentacam) with no significant difference, either in the whole sample, the WTR eyes and the ATR eyes (F = 0.078, 0.306 and 0.083, p = 0.925, 0.739 and 0.920, respectively). Measured PCA obtained from IOL Master 700 resulted in one level reduction (from Tn to Tn-1) in 49.12% eyes in cylindrical model selection, while measured PCA obtained from Pentacam resulted in one level reduction of toric model selection in 18.18% eyes.
conclusionThe present study suggested that the incorporation of measured PCA values derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam produce comparable clinical outcome with the predicted PCA mode in Barrett toric calculator.
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.