ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
Accuracy of Ten Intraocular Lens Formulas in Spherical Equivalent of Toric Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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.
- 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
- Comparisons of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas for Eyes With Astigmatism: Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Modern Toric Intraocular Lens Formulas Based on Anterior Corneal Measurements.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Predicting accuracy of spherical equivalent after cataract surgery using the online Zcalc calculator for toric IOLs.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this work is to evaluate the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BU II), Emmetropia verifying optical (EVO) 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST (Savini/Taroni) (HQST), Holladay 1, Kane, Ladas Super, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/theoretical (SRK/T), and T2 intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas for calculating spherical equivalent (SE) of toric IOL.
methodsThis study enrolled consecutive patients who underwent phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation at the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in Hangzhou from 2015 to 2022. We compared the new-generation formulas with Gaussian optics-based standard formulas, and calculated the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 diopter (D), ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D and ± 1.00 D of the target refraction. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), and toricity (T).
resultsA total of 207 eyes of 207 patients were included in this study. Overall, the Kane and EVO2.0 formulas demonstrated the lowest MedAEs. The EVO2.0 formula exhibited the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.00 D. Moreover, the EVO2.0 formula showed the lowest MedAE for flat K subgroup, the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D, ± 1.00 D for shallow ACD subgroup, the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.75 D for regular ACD, flat K, T2-T3, T4-T5 subgroups. The Kane and formula performed the lowest MedAE in the T4-T5 subgroup.
conclusionsApplication of the Kane and EVO2.0 formulas significantly improved the prediction of postoperative SE outcome for toric IOL compared to the other formulas.
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.