ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in short and long eyes.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: To compare the accuracy of intraoperative wavefront aberrometry using the ORA VLynk system with different biometry-based formulas in short and long eyes after cataract surgery. Methods: This prospective study considered 48 eyes with axial lengths of <22.1 mm and 48 eyes with axial lengths of >25.0 mm. All eyes were implanted with the monofocal AcrySof IQ IOL, the power being determined using the ORA VLynk. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) at 3 months was compared to that predicted preoperatively using the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal II, and Barrett True K formulas and intraoperatively using the ORA VLynk. Mean numerical and absolute errors and the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D/1.00 D of their target were obtained. Results: For long eyes, the mean absolute error values were 0.35, 0.52, 0.34, 0.30, 0.29, 0.27, and 0.24D for SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True K, and ORA VLynk, respectively ( Conclusion: The ORA VLynk performs better than all biometry-based formulas in long eyes and, in short eyes, it is as effective as SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Barrett true K, with the Hoffer Q and Holladay 2 being the most accurate; however, the differences between the calculation methods were small. Clinical trial registration: Identifier DRKS000028106.
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.