ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Accuracy of the Majority Voting Method with Multiple IOL Power Formulae.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a majority decision algorithm that integrates intraoperative aberrometry (IA) and two intraocular lens (IOL) frequency formulas. The primary objective was to compare the accuracy of three formulas (IA; Sanders, Retzlaff, and Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T); and Barrett Universal II (BUII)), in achieving emmetropia in eyes implanted with TFNT lenses (Alcon). Patients and Methods: A total of 145 eyes of 145 patients were included in the evaluation. Preoperative data were obtained from IOLMaster 700, while intraoperative data were collected from ORA SYSTEMTM. Visual acuity ≥0.8 at the 3-month post-surgery mark was confirmed. We assessed refractive prediction error (RPE), which is the difference between predicted refraction (PR) and postoperative subjective refraction. This evaluation aimed to identify the optimal IOL power with the implemented algorithm. Results: Among the 145 eyes evaluated, 55.9%, 78.7%, and 97.2% achieved postoperative subjective refraction within ±0.13 Diopters (D), ±0.25 D, and ±0.50 D, respectively. The percentages of eyes within ±0.25 D of PR varied by formula type, with values of 57%, 57%, and 54% for IA, BUII, and SRK/T, respectively. For eyes with short to medium axial length (AL<26.00 mm), the percentages within ±0.25 D of RPE were 52%, 58%, and 58% for IA, SRK/T, and BUII, respectively. In contrast, for eyes with long axial length (≥26.00 mm) the percentages were 68%, 52%, and 45% for IA, BUII, and SRK/T, respectively. Conclusion: The proposed majority decision algorithm incorporating IA and two IOL frequency formulas was effective in reducing postoperative refractive error. IA was particularly beneficial for eyes with long axial length. These findings suggest the algorithm has potential to optimize IOL power selection to improve quality of life of patients and clinical practice outcomes.
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.