ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Fellow eye data for intraocular lens calculation in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Fellow eye data for intraocular lens calculation in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Axial Length Measurements by Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers in Macula-off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of the fellow eye (FE) can be used in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.
methodsIn this retrospective, consecutive case series, we enrolled patients who underwent combined phacovitrectomy with silicone oil removal and IOL implantation at the Goethe-University. Preoperative examinations included biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss). We used the IOL calculation of the FE (FE group) to calculate the prediction error compared with the IOL calculation using only the axial length (AL) of the FE (AL-FE group), as well as using the AL of the operated eye (OE group) in addition to the measurable biometric parameters. IOL calculation was performed using the Barrett Universal II formula. We compared the mean (MAE) and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) with each other. Furthermore, the number of eyes with ±0.50, ±1.00 and ±2.00 dioptres (D) deviation from the target refraction was compared.
resultsIn total, 79 eyes of 79 patients were included. MedAE was lowest in the OE group (0.41 D), followed by FE group (1.00 D) and AL-FE group (1.02 D). Comparison between the AL-FE and FE groups showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.712). Comparing eyes within ±0.50 D of the target refraction, the OE group (63.3%) performed best, followed by the AL-FE group (27.8%) and the FE group (26.6%).
conclusionOur results indicate no clinically relevant difference between using the IOL calculation of the FE versus using only the AL of the FE in addition to the measurable parameters for the IOL calculation. A two-step procedure should always be strived for.
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.