ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Calculators with Predicted and Measured Posterior Corneal Astigmatism Across Different Types of Astigmatism.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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 2 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
2 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
- Comparative evaluation of several toric intraocular lens calculators for predicting postoperative refractive astigmatism in cataract surgery: a real-world study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study is a retrospective case series to compare the accuracy of the Barrett toric calculator using predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and PCA measurements using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and a Scheimpflug camera. This evaluation was conducted across different types of anterior and posterior astigmatism.
methodsA total of 146 eyes from 146 patients implanted with toric intraocular lenses were included. Mean absolute prediction error, standard deviation of prediction error, and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 diopters (D) were calculated using vector analysis. Biometric measurements were conducted using the IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam HR. A subgroup analysis was conducted based on the orientation of both anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism.
resultsThe Barrett toric calculator with predicted PCA yielded the best results, with 78.1% having a prediction error ≤ 0.50 D, which was a significantly higher percentage than the Barrett formula with the two versions of measured PCA (P < 0.05). In the subgroup with a horizontally steep meridian PCA using the IOLMaster 700, the Barrett formula with predicted PCA yielded the best results, with 78.3% of cases having a prediction error of less than 0.5 D. This percentage was significantly higher than the other two measured PCA subgroups (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe Barrett toric formula with predicted PCA demonstrated a statistically significantly higher proportion of cases with a prediction error ≤ 0.5 D compared to the two measured PCA formulas (from the IOLMaster 700 or Pentacam). This trend persisted even when the posterior corneal astigmatism was horizontally steep.
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.