ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
A Comprehensive Evaluation of 16 Old and New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Eyes.
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. 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.
- Simplification of a Three-Constant Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula to a Single-Constant Approach: The Haigis Formula.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Considerations on the Haigis formula: Are better outcomes possible with tuning?Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of 16 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric cataract eyes. Patients and Methods: The data records of pediatric patients who had been implanted with three IOL models (SA60AT, MA60AC, and enVista-MX60) between 2012 and 2018 were analyzed. The accuracy of 16 IOL power calculation methods was evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Castrop, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, LSF AI, Naeser 2, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T, T2, VRF, and VRF-G. The non-optimized (ULIB/IOLcon) and optimized constants were used for IOL power calculation. The mean prediction error (PE), Performance Index (FPI), and all descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Ninety-seven eyes of 97 pediatric patients aged 13.2 (IQR 11.2-17.1) were included. No statistically significant difference (HS-test) was observed (p > 0.818) except for the Hoffer Q, and Naeser 2 (P = 0.014). With optimized lens constants, the best FPI indices were obtained by Hoffer Q (0.256) and VRF-G (0.251) formulas, followed by Hill-RBF 3.0 and BUII, with an index of 0.248. The highest FPI indices with non-optimized constants showed SRK/T and T2 formulas (0.246 and 0.245, respectively), followed by VRF-G and Holladay 1, with an index of 0.244. The best median absolute error values (MedAE) were achieved by Hoffer Q (0.50 D), VRF-G (0.53 D), and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D), all P ≥ 0.074. Conclusion: Our results place the Hoffer Q, VRF-G, Hill-RBF 3.0, and BUII formulas as more accurate predictors of postoperative refraction in pediatric cataract surgery.
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.