SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023
The accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas based on artificial intelligence in highly myopic eyes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of Kane, Hill-RBF, and PEARL-DGS versus traditional IOL formulas in highly myopic eyes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in pathologic myopia: a review of clinical research studies.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Highly Myopic Eyes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- [Calculating IOL power - principles, development and current challenges].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of twelve intraocular lens calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The influence of keratometry on the accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in highly myopic eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence driven intraocular lens power calculation in extreme axial myopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of traditional and AI-based intraocular lens power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas (Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function, and Ladas Super Formula): Which One Is More Accurate?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Intraocular lens calculation for cataract surgery in high myopia: a case report of an extreme axial eyeball length of 35.7 mm.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Global trends and hotspots in artificial intelligence for high myopia: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Review
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically compare and rank the accuracy of AI-based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas and traditional IOL formulas in highly myopic eyes. Methods: We screened PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to April 2023. The following outcome data were collected: mean absolute error (MAE), percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D), and median absolute error (MedAE). The network meta-analysis was conducted by R 4.3.0 and STATA 17.0. Results: Twelve studies involving 2,430 adult myopic eyes (with axial lengths >26.0 mm) that underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with mono-focal IOL implantation were included. The network meta-analysis of 21 formulas showed that the top three AI-based formulas, as per the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values, were XGBoost, Hill-RBF, and Kane. The three formulas had the lowest MedAE and were more accurate than traditional vergence formulas, such as SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Hoffer Q regarding MAE, percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D. Conclusions: The top AI-based formulas for calculating IOL power in highly myopic eyes were XGBoost, Hill-RBF, and Kane. They were significantly more accurate than traditional vergence formulas and ranked better than formulas with Wang-Koch AL modifications or newer generations of formulas such as Barrett and Olsen. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022335969.
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.