ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
A Retrospective Study of Visual Outcomes When Using a Cloud-Based Surgical Planning Platform and the Barrett Universal II Formula.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Shallow Anterior Chamber on Postoperative Refractive Status in Patients of Age-Related Cataract.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of a cloud-based surgical planning platform with regards to refractive target accuracy. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of consecutive cases from January 2022 through December 2023. Surgical planning was performed using the SMARTCataract platform, eyes were implanted with Clareon monofocal IOLs, and power calculations were done using the Barrett Universal II formula. Data were collected for the percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D of target refraction, mean absolute error (MAE), and postoperative visual acuity. Results: A total of 148 eyes were identified that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D of the planned target was 94%. The MAE was 0.25 ± 0.17 D. In addition, 57%, 93%, 98%, and 100% of eyes had MAE ≤ 0.25 D, ≤ 0.5 D, ≤ 0.75 D, and ≤ 1.0 D, respectively. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest high refractive accuracy when using the SMARTCataract planning platform with the Barrett Universal II formula and excellent distance visual acuity.
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.