ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Multi Comparison of 8 Different Intraocular Lens Biometry Formulae, Including a Machine Learning Thin Lens Formula (MM) and an Inbuilt Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Ray Tracing Formula.
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 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
A comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae, including SRK/T, HofferQ, Holladay 1, Haigis, MM, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and AS-OCT ray tracing, was performed. One hundred eyes implanted with either the Rayone EMV RAO200E (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Limited, Worthing, UK) or the Artis Symbiose (Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) IOL were included. Biometry was obtained using IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and MS-39 AS-OCT (CSO, Firenze, Italy). Mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors and percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D, and ±1.00D of the target were compared, with ±0.75D considered a key metric. The highest percentage within ±0.75D was found with MM (96%) followed by the Haigis (94%) for the enhanced monofocal IOL. SRK/T (94%) had the highest percentage within ±0.75D, followed by Holladay 1, MM, BUII, and ray tracing (all 90%) for the multifocal IOL. No statistically significant difference in MAE was found with both IOLs. EVO showed the lowest MAE for the enhanced monofocal and ray tracing for the multifocal IOL. EVO and ray tracing showed the lowest MedAE for the two respective IOLs. A similar performance with high accuracy across formulae was found. MM and ray tracing appear to have similar accuracy to the well-established formulae and displayed a high percentage of eyes within ±0.75D.
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.