ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of the formula accuracy for calculating multifocal intraocular lens power: a single center retrospective study in Korean patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refractive outcomes and biometric prediction accuracy following Optiflex Trio trifocal intraocular lens implantation.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Effect of Shallow Anterior Chamber on Postoperative Refractive Status in Patients of Age-Related Cataract.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Simulated ocular biometry effects on add-power demand in multifocal intraocular lenses.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of the Minimization of Standard Deviation Before Zeroization of the Mean Bias on the Performance of IOL Power Formulas.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Investigation of the myopic outcomes of the newer intraocular lens power calculation formulas in Korean patients with long eyes.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the accuracy of newer formulas (Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hoffer QST, and PEARL-DGS) and the Haigis formula in Korean patients with the Alcon TFNT multifocal intraocular lens. In total, 3100 randomly selected eyes of 3100 patients were retrospectively reviewed. After constant optimization, the standard deviation (SD) of the prediction error was assessed for the entire group, and the root mean square error was compared for short and long axial length (AL) subgroup analysis. The Cooke-modified AL (CMAL) was experimentally applied to the Haigis formula. All the newer formulas performed well, but they did not significantly outperform the Haigis formula. In addition, all the newer formulas exhibited significant myopic outcomes (- 0.23 to - 0.29 diopters) in long eyes. Application of the CMAL to the Haigis formula with single constant optimization produced similar behavior and higher correlation with the newer formulas. The CMAL-applied triple-optimized Haigis formula yielded a substantially smaller SD, even superior to the Barrett and Hoffer QST formulas. The AL modification algorithms such as the CMAL used in newer formulas to cope with optical biometry's overestimation of the AL in long eyes seemed to overcompensate, particularly in the long eyes of the East Asian population.
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.