ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Intraocular Lens Formulas in Patients With Postoperative Refractive Surprise.
Article in Cureus, 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
objectiveThis study investigates the refractive accuracy of eight intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in patients with postoperative refractive surprise after phacoemulsification. It aims to determine if a different formula could result in better refractive outcomes in these eyes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing uncomplicated phacoemulsification as a sole procedure between March 2007 and September 2020 at the University of Washington by glaucoma subspecialists as part of a study investigating cataract surgery in normal eyes. The refractive surprise was defined as > 0.5 D difference between the zeroed-out predicted error (PE) using the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula and postoperative refraction at four and 12 weeks. Mean absolute error (MAE) and zeroed out PE for Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and 2, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff theoretical (SRK/T), radial basis function (RBF) 3.0, Kane, and Ladas super formula AI (LSFAI) formulas were calculated.
resultsOf 440 eyes, 88 (20.0%) met inclusion criteria (MAE 0.77 ± 0.28). Of these, 35.2% and 64.8% had myopic (MAE 0.76 ± 0.23) and hyperopic (0.78 ± 0.31 D) surprise, respectively. The predicted SE significantly differed from postoperative refraction for all formulas (p
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.