ArticleKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2023
Postoperative Refractive Outcomes of Biometric Formulas in Phacovitrectomy with Gas Tamponade.
Article in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of 10 biometric formulas in combined phacovitrectomy for different underlying retinal pathology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the refractive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for biometric formulas in phacovitrectomy.
methodsThis retrospective study included 357 eyes of 357 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy using four commonly available IOL power formulas: Hoffer Q (87 eyes), Holladay 1 (78 eyes), Holladay 2 (91 eyes), and SRK/T (101 eyes). The mean refractive error (ME) and the mean absolute refractive error (MAE) were calculated based on the predicted postoperative refraction error, and they were compared using analysis of variance test. Subjects were divided into high myopic eyes (axial length, ≥26 mm) and nonhigh myopic eyes (axial length, <26 mm).
resultsThe ME and the MAE after phacovitrectomy did not show a significant difference among the four IOL power formulas (p = 0.546 and p = 0.495, respectively). There was no significant statistical difference in formulas when the eyes were grouped into high myopia and nonhigh myopia (ME: p = 0.526 and p = 0.482, respectively; MAE: p = 0.715 and p = 0.627, respectively). The ME showed myopic shift in all formulas regardless of IOL formula used. The ME showed greater myopic shift in high myopia group than nonhigh myopia group in all formulas.
conclusionsOur study did not find evidence for superiority of any formula in phacovitrectomy. However, in phacovitrectomy, possible myopic shift should be considered for IOL power calculation. Especially, in phacovitrecotmy in patients with high myopia, more myopic shift should be considered when selecting IOL.
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.