ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-including Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis standard, Haigis optimized, Holladay 1, Olsen, Barrett Universal II-in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes undergoing cataract surgery combined with goniosynechialysis (GSL).
methodsPreoperative biometric data were obtained using the OA-2000. The preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was categorized into two subgroups: < 2.50 mm and 2.50 to 3.50 mm. The predictive accuracy of the formulas was assessed using the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D. Differences in absolute error among the various formulas were examined utilizing the Friedman test. In the case of a significant result, post hoc analysis was conducted employing the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction.
resultsA total of 141 eyes of 141 PACG patients were included in the analysis. The standard deviations of the PE, ranked from lowest to highest, were as follows: Holladay 1 (0.67), Kane (0.69), EVO 2.0 (0.71), SRK/T (0.71), Hoffer Q (0.72), Haigis standard (0.74), Haigis optimized (0.76), Olsen (0.77), Barrett Universal II (0.79). Statistically significant differences in absolute refractive errors among the formulas were observed (P = 0.001). Kane formula demonstrated the lowest MedAE (0.34), and the highest percentages of eyes within ± 0.25D (35.46%) and ± 1.00D (89.36%), while EVO 2.0 had the highest percentages within ± 0.50D (65.25%). In the ACD < 2.50 mm subgroup, MedAE differed significantly among formulas (P = 0.001). The Holladay 1 formula had the lowest MedAE (0.33), followed by Kane (0.34), EVO 2.0 (0.37). In the 2.50 ≤ ACD < 3.50 mm subgroup, refractive errors showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the percentages within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D demonstrated no significant differences in both subgroups (all P > 0.05).
conclusionAmong the nine formulas, Kane, Holladay 1, and EVO 2.0 demonstrated superior refractive outcomes in PACG eyes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39652241What 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.