ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparing clinical outcomes of Optiwave Refractive Analysis, Lenstar, and surgeon's modified method for intraocular lens power calculation in Asian eyes.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced keratometry for IOL power calculation after myopic LASIK: a multi-device comparison.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Ocular biometric parameters associated with the performance of actual near-add power in multifocal intraocular lenses.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation to predict postoperative refraction by Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA), Lenstar LS 900, and the surgeon's Modify method in normal Asian eyes. The IOL power of the Lenstar group was calculated according to Lenstar LS 900, whereas the surgeon's Modify group used topography, axial length (AL) of Lenstar, and Barrett Universal II online formula. Intraoperative aphakic measurements and IOL power calculations were obtained with the ORA system. From the results acquired through Lenstar, Modify, and ORA, the surgeon used his judgment to select the actual IOL power. Postoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) was obtained 2 months after surgery. The prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between the postoperative MRSE and the target refraction proposed by three methods. AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD, measured from corneal endothelium to lens), lens thickness (LT), and ACD + 1/2LT were also included in the survey. In 67 eyes, the average real PE was smaller for the Lenstar (0.06 ± 0.44) and Modify (- 0.05 ± 0.40) than for the ORA group (- 0.25 ± 0.60, p < 0.05). The ORA system demonstrated the best results of IOL power selection in eyes with a normal range of ACD + 0.5 LT (5.2-5.6 mm) in Asian eyes.
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.