ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Intraocular lens calculation formula selection for short eyes: based on axial length and anterior chamber depth.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Influence of Ocular Biometric Parameters on IOL Power Calculation Accuracy in Short and Normal Axial Length Eyes.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical management of nanophthalmos combined with cataract: a case series.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Analysis of ocular biometry in Korean using swept-source optical coherence tomography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ocular Biometry and Refractive Prediction in Short Eyes: A Comparison of Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the predictive accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in eyes with an axial length (AL) less than 22.00 mm.
methodsNew-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] 2.0, Hill-Radial Basis Function [Hill-RBF] 3.0, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Pearl-DGS) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) were evaluated for predictive accuracy. Subgroup analyses were performed based on AL and anterior chamber depth (ACD).
resultsThe study enrolled a total of 184 eyes from 184 patients. The BUII, Hoffer QST, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T showed myopic shifts (-0.49 to -0.18 diopters [D], P < 0.05), whereas K6 displayed a hyperopic shift (0.11 D, P = 0.03). The Kane exhibited no systematic bias (-0.07 D), and yielded lower mean absolute error (MAE) (0.48 D, P < 0.05) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) (0.65 D, P < 0.01). For eyes with an AL ≤ 21.5 mm and an ACD > 2.5 mm, the Pearl-DGS displayed the smallest MAE (0.43 D) and lowest RMSAE (0.57 D), while other new-generation formulas showed relatively worse performance (MAE: 0.46 to 0.67 D; RMSAE: 0.60 to 0.84 D).
conclusionThe Kane formula showed the highest accuracy in short eyes, whereas the Pearl-DGS had superior performance in eyes with a relatively shorter AL and deeper ACD. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.