ArticleKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2025
Comparison of Toric Intraocular Lens Axis Accuracy between Optical Biometry and Dual Scheimpflug Topography.
Article in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4).
methodsMedical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device.
resultsThe mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and -0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively).
conclusionsThis study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.
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.