ReviewOphthalmology2025
Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Review in Ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- Refractive Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry for a New-Material Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Multicenter, Prospective, and Observational Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the published literature to compare intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with preoperative biometry-based formulas with respect to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation accuracy for various clinical scenarios.
methodsLiterature searches in the PubMed database conducted in August 2022, July 2023, and February 2024 identified 157, 18, and 6 citations, respectively. These were reviewed in abstract form, and 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each of the articles; 4 were rated level I, 19 were rated level II, and 6 were rated level III.
resultsIntraoperative aberrometry performed better than traditional vergence formulas, including the Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T, and similarly to the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF with respect to minimization of spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. For toric IOLs, IA outperformed formulas that only considered anterior corneal astigmatism and was similar to formulas like the Barrett Toric Calculator (BTC), which empirically account for the contribution from the posterior cornea. In eyes with a history of corneal refractive surgery, IA performed similarly to the Barrett True-K and slightly better than other tested methods, including the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Wang-Koch-Maloney formulas.
conclusionsIntraoperative aberrometry corresponds well with modern vergence formulas, including the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, BTC, and Barrett True-K. It has greater accuracy than traditional vergence-based IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with and without a history of corneal refractive surgery. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
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.