SynthesisPloS one2024
How to choose the intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial length? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network meta-analysis of intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy for the Yamane technique.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- [Calculating IOL power - principles, development and current challenges].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Ocular biometric characteristics in young Saudi adults across varying degrees of myopia.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence driven intraocular lens power calculation in extreme axial myopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Accuracy of 12 IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Factors affecting the refractive error after cataract surgery.International ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Prediction of Seven Artificial Intelligence-Based Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Medium-Long Caucasian Eyes.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Precision, Agreement, and Accuracy of Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of 20 Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Medium-Long Eyes.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Ocular Biometric Correlations in a Mexican Population: Implications for Intraocular Lens Planning in Anterior Segment Surgery.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of 10 formulas for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in cataract eye with an axial length (AL) of more than 28.0 mm.
methodsWe searched scientific databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for research published over the past 5 years, up to Sept 2023. The inclusion criteria were case series studies that compared different formulas (Barrett II, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, Holladay 1 w-k and SRK/T w-k), in patients with extremely long AL undergoing uncomplicated cataract surgery with IOL implantation. The mean difference (MD) of mean absolute error (MAE) and the odds ratio (OR) of both the percentage of eyes within ±0.50D of prediction error (PPE±0.50D) and the percentage of eyes within ±1.00D of prediction error (PPE±1.00D) among different formulas were pooled using meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 11 studies, involving 1376 eyes, were included to evaluate the 10 formulas mentioned above. Among these formulas, Barrett II, EVO, Kane, and Hill-RBF demonstrated significantly lower MAE values compared to SRK/T. Furthermore, Kane and Hill-RBF had lower MAE values than EVO. Additionally, Barrett II and Kane yielded significantly lower MAE values than Haigis while Hill-RBF showed significantly lower MAE values than Holladay 1. Moreover, Hill-RBF showed the highest values for both PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D, followed by Kane. Both EVO and Kane had higher values of PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D compared to Haigis and SRK/T.
conclusionThe Wang-Koch adjusted formulas and new-generation formulas have shown potential for higher accuracy in predicting IOL power for cataract patients with extremely long AL compared to traditional formulas. Based on the current limited clinical studies, Hill-RBF and Kane formulas seem to be a better choice for eyes with extremely long 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.