ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Risk Factors for Postoperative Refractive Error in New-Generation Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas.
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 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.
- Segmentation of patients with cataract according to their ocular biometry: the LAKE classification.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Observational
- Association Between Lens Thickness and SRK/T Refractive Prediction Error After Cataract Surgery: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Biometric Changes and Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula Accuracy in Delayed Cataract Surgery Cases.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Refractive Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Nonagenarians: A Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- The Clinical Usefulness of Evaluating the Lens and Intraocular Lenses Using Optical Coherence Tomography: An Updated Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We examined differences in the accuracy of three intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas: the traditional Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T) formula; the Barrett Universal II (BU II) formula, which is a new-generation IOL calculation formula; and the postoperative spherical equivalent prediction using artificial intelligence and linear algorithms developed by Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad formula (PEARL-DGS [PEARL]) formula, and evaluated factors that cause postoperative refractive error (PE). Patients and Methods: The study included 205 patients (205 eyes) with a mean age of 75.2 ± 8.7 years who underwent cataract surgery at our institution from December 2018 to October 2023. The PE of the three IOL calculation formulas was calculated and compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with a PE higher than ±0.50 D as the dependent variable, and age, sex, axial length (AL), mean keratometry (mean K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and white-to-white (WTW) as independent variables. Results: The mean PE (ME) ± standard deviation of the SRK/T, BU II, and PEARL formulas was 0.11 ± 0.52, 0.11 ± 0.50, and 0.21 ± 0.50 D, respectively. MEs of the three IOL calculation formulas were significantly different from 0 (p < 0.01). The median absolute error (MedAE) was not significantly different among the three IOL calculation formulas (p = 0.83). The percentage of PE within ±0.50 D was not significantly different among the three IOL calculation formulas (p = 0.13). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the significantly associated factors with PE higher than ±0.50 D were AL, ACD, and LT for the SRK/T formula, sex and LT for the BU II formula, and LT for the PEARL formula (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: In the BU II and PEARL formulas, AL was excluded as a factor affecting PE, indicating that LT was a risk factor.
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.