ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Factors Associated with Refractive Prediction Error after Phacotrabeculectomy.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic changes in axial length and refractive error following intraocular pressure normalization in acute primary angle-closure glaucoma.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Cataract Surgery Combined with Trabeculectomy in Open Angle Glaucoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of 7 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure glaucoma eyes, according to axial length and anterior chamber depth.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Refractive error after phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation in primary angle-closure glaucoma: a multifactorial analysis of biometric parameters and surgical strategies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
- Effects of intraocular pressure change on intraocular lens power calculation in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare refractive prediction errors between phacotrabeculectomy and phacoemulsification.
methodsRefractive prediction error was defined as the difference in spherical equivalent between the predicted value using the Barrett Universal II formula and the actual value obtained at postoperative one month. Forty-eight eyes that had undergone phacotrabeculectomy (19 eyes, open-angle glaucoma; 29 eyes, angle-closure glaucoma) were matched with 48 eyes that had undergone phacoemulsification by age, average keratometry value and axial length (AL), and their prediction errors were compared. The factors associated with prediction errors were analyzed by multivariable regression analyses.
resultsThe phacotrabeculectomy group showed a larger absolute prediction error than the phacoemulsification group (0.51 ± 0.37 Diopters vs. 0.38 ± 0.22 Diopters,
conclusionsSurgeons should be aware of the possibility of worse refractive outcomes when planning phacotrabeculectomy, especially in eyes with high preoperative IOP, shallow ACD, and/or extreme AL.
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.