Observational studyInternational ophthalmology2024
Total keratometry versus standard keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with keratoconus.
Observational study in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Studying the effect of keratoconus severity on the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using newer keratoconus-specific formulas.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Advances in IOL calculations in patients with keratoconus.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe the accuracy of monofocal intraocular lens power calculation in patients with keratoconus using total keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) with conventional and keratoconus-modified formulas.
settingAsociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México, Mexico City, Mexico.
designObservational, retrospective, non-randomized, comparative study.
methodsBiometric data from IOL Master 700 and postoperative refraction were collected from patients with keratoconus who had undergone cataract surgery. Predicted refraction of each patient was calculated using K and TK with the following formulas: SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Panacea, Kane, Kane keratoconus, and Barrett True-K keratoconus (predicted and measured posterior corneal astigmatism [PCA]). Refractive prediction error, mean absolute error, trimmed mean, median absolute error, standard deviation, and percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D, ± 1.00 D, ± 1.50 D, ± 2.00, and > 2.00 D were determined.
results55 keratoconic eyes of 40 patients were included. RPE in patients with keratoconus was < 1.00 D with all formulas. Barrett True-K keratoconus with predicted PCA registered the lowest MAE and MedAE. All formulas showed a discrete increase in myopic error percentage when calculations were performed using TK as opposed to K.
conclusionsBarrett True-K for keratoconus showed the highest accuracy, closely followed by Kane KC. BTK KC pPCA or mPCA with standard keratometries could serve as the primary choice in eyes with keratoconus and steepness < 60 D. In the absence of keratoconus-modified formulas, TK input in conventional formulas improves the prediction outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39556249What 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.