ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparative evaluation of several toric intraocular lens calculators for predicting postoperative refractive astigmatism in cataract surgery: a real-world study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- IOL Calculators Variability in Toric Lens Planning: A Retrospective Paired Comparison of the Planning Discrepancies Between the Johnson & Johnson Toric Calculator and ESCRS-Hosted Engines.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to comprehensively evaluate the predictive accuracy of six widely used toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculators in eyes undergoing cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation.
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed 53 eyes of 53 patients that underwent cataract extraction with toric IOL implantation using Zeiss 709 M. Six toric IOL calculators were evaluated: Barrett toric calculator (with predicted PCA, measured PCA, and TK), Kane formula (predicted PCA), and EVO 2.0 formula (predicted and measured PCA). Postoperative refractive astigmatism prediction errors were comprehensively calculated and analyzed using vector analysis.
resultsThe mean absolute prediction error (APE) ranged from 0.56 ± 0.37 D (Barrett TK) to 0.63 ± 0.46 D (Barrett predicted PCA, PPCA). The proportions of eyes achieving APE ≤ 1.0 D were highest for Barrett TK and Kane predicted PCA (90.6%). The highest proportions of eyes achieving APE ≤ 0.25 D and ≤ 0.50 D were observed with Barrett measured PCA (18.9% and 56.6%, respectively), while the lowest with Barrett PPCA (9.4% and 50.9%, respectively). The study found no statistically significant differences in mean absolute prediction error (APE) among the six calculators (χ² = 6.88, P = 0.23) and the centroid of PE (P = 0.93). A difference in mean APE was observed between the Barrett predicted PCA and Barrett TK calculators (P = 0.02).
conclusionThe study confirms the importance of considering posterior corneal astigmatism remains essential to achieving precise refractive outcomes but also underscores the need for ongoing refinement and evaluation to optimize surgical outcomes.
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.