SynthesisClinical & experimental ophthalmology
Intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in patients with keratoconus: Network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in patients with keratoconus: Network meta-analysis and systematic review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyPooled it
- Comparisons of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas for Eyes With Astigmatism: Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- 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
backgroundAccurate intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) poses significant challenges. While various formulas, including KCN-specific ones, have been investigated, the optimal calculation method remains inconclusive.
methodsThe study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023483119). PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with KCN. The percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the mean PE and the mean absolute error (MAE) were compared using a random effect model in Bayesian network meta-analysis.
resultsNine retrospective clinical studies were included, totalling 623 eyes and 25 calculation methods. The Barrett True-K formula for KCN with measured posterior cornea (BTK MPC) achieved the highest ranking for the percentage of PE within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, mean PE, and MAE, with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of 95%, 95%, 97% and 95%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that for the predictability rates within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the best ranking formulas were: Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (85%) and BTK MPC (78%), respectively, in mild KCN; BTK with predicted posterior cornea (PPC) (85%) and MPC (88%), respectively, in moderate KCN; and Kane KCN for both metrics in severe KCN (84% and 95%, respectively).
conclusionThe BTK MPC formula ranked highest across various metrics, suggesting its superior accuracy for IOL calculations in KCN. The optimal formulas may differ based on KCN severity, with current evidence suggesting potential advantage of Kane KCN for severe cases.
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.