ArticleCureus2023
Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simplification of a Three-Constant Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula to a Single-Constant Approach: The Haigis Formula.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Biometric Changes and Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula Accuracy in Delayed Cataract Surgery Cases.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Considerations on the Haigis formula: Are better outcomes possible with tuning?Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Postoperative Refractive Error in New-Generation Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction To compare the prediction accuracy of lens power calculation formulas in patients undergoing mature cataract surgery. Methods A total of 90 operations involving the Alcon SA60AT IOL implant (Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland) were analyzed in terms of mean refractive prediction error (PE) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE) using backward calculation in a retrospective design. Results A negative PE was observed in SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formulas. In contrast, positive PEs were observed in Barrett Universal II (BAUII), Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) formulas. Negative PE was observed with all formulas, except BAUII, in patients with a shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). While the SRK/T, Holladay 1, BAU, Kane, and RBF formulas demonstrated positive PE, the Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and EVO formulas indicated negative PE. In patients with deep ACD, positive PE was observed in all formulas, barring Holladay 2 and EVO. No significant differences were identified between the formulas concerning MAE and percentages of 0.25 diopter (D), 0.50 D, 0.75 D, and 1.0 D across all study groups. Conclusion Although the new generation formulas provide very good results, achieving the best with a single formula is still impossible.
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.