ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2024
Prediction of spectacle refraction uncertainties with discrete IOL power steps and manufacturing tolerances according to ISO using a Monte Carlo model.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variation in Manifest Subjective Refraction in a Population Screened for Refractive Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Repeatability of Corneal Astigmatism and Equivalent Power with the MS-39 Tomographer Derived from Model Surface Fitting in a Cataractous Population.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Repeatability of biometric measures from the LenStar LS900 in a cataractous population.PloS one · 2025Article
- Repeatability of corneal measurements from the Casia2 anterior segment tomographer in a cataractous population.PloS one · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Visual, Refractive and Aberrometric Outcome with the Use of 2 Intraocular Refractive Segment Multifocal Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Prediction of refraction error after toric lens implantation with biometric input data uncertainties and power labelling tolerances.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyArticle
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 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to develop a concept for predicting the effects of both discrete intraocular lens (IOL) power steps (PS) and power labelling tolerances (LT) on the uncertainty of the refractive outcome (REFU).
designRetrospective non-randomised cross-sectional Monte Carlo simulation study.
methodsWe evaluated a dataset containing 16 669 IOLMaster 700 preoperative biometric measurements. The PS and the delivery range of two modern IOLs (Bausch and Lomb enVista and Alcon SA60AT) were considered for this Monte Carlo simulation. The uncertainties from PS or LT were assumed to be normally distributed according to ±½ the IOL PS or the ISO 11979 LT. REFU was recorded and analysed for all simulations.
resultsWith both lenses the REFU from discrete PS ranged from 0.11 to 0.12 dpt. Due to the larger PS for low/high power lenses with the enVista/SA60AT, REFU is more dominant in initially myopic/hyperopic eyes. REFU from LT ranged from 0.18 to 0.19 dpt for both lenses. Since LT increases stepwise with IOL power, REFU is more prevalent in initially hyperopic eyes requiring high IOL power values, and for lenses with a wide delivery range towards higher powers.
conclusionsSince surgeons and patients are typically aware of the effect of discrete PS on REFU, these might be tolerated in cataract surgery. However, REFU resulting from LT is inevitable while the true measured IOL power is not reported on the package, leading to background noise in postoperative achieved refraction.
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.