ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Accuracy of Astigmatism Calculation with the Barrett, Panacea, and enVista Toric Calculators.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Six Toric IOL Power Calculation Formulas, Including Four Available on the ESCRS Online Calculator.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- The Preoperative Factors for the Undercorrection of Myopia in an Extend Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens: A Case-Control Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The refractive accuracy between topographic keratometry and biometric keratometry for extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens implantation.International journal of medical sciences · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate residual refractive astigmatism using the Panacea and enVista toric calculators, compared to the gold-standard Barrett toric calculator.
designA retrospective and comparative study was conducted in one center.
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of all patients with a diagnosis of senile cataracts and regular corneal astigmatism, without previous corneal or intraocular surgery, who underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a toric intraocular lens, who had pre- and postoperative corneal topography, biometry, and refraction measurements.
resultsThe frequency of preoperative astigmatism according to the axis was 70 (84%) eyes showing with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism, 9 (14%) eyes with against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism, and 1 (2%) eye with oblique astigmatism. Regarding astigmatism prediction errors, there were statistically significant differences between the enVista and Panacea calculators (median of 0.39, 0.18, and 0.52 for Barrett, enVista, and Panacea, respectively). The residual astigmatism prediction error centroid was similar for the Barrett and enVista toric calculators, and both were lower compared to the Panacea calculator (x-component
conclusionsThe enVista toric calculator incorporating the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) toric calculator provides similar results to the gold-standard Barrett 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.