ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2025
Refractive accuracy of the new Barrett formula using segmented axial length compared with that of the traditional Barrett Universal II formula.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spherical equivalent prediction analysis in intraocular lens power calculations using Barrett Universal II formula variations.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the refractive accuracy of the Barrett True axial length (BTAL) formula, newly integrated into ARGOS, with that of the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula calculated using axial length (AL) from IOL Master 700.
settingPrivate clinics in Kanagawa, Japan.
designRetrospective observational study.
methodsWe assessed eyes of patients who underwent cataract surgery with SY60WF IOL implantation, using ARGOS and IOL Master 700. The predicted refraction for BTAL was back-calculated. Refractive prediction errors (RPEs) for BTAL, BUII with ARGOS (segmented BUII), and BUII with IOL Master 700 (composite BUII) were compared. We primarily aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of BTAL to composite BUII in absolute RPE.
resultsWe included 209 eyes from 209 patients. BTAL met the non-inferiority criteria, as the upper confidence interval (CI) boundary was below the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 diopters (D) for the difference in absolute RPE (-0.03 D; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.01). In short eyes (AL ≤ 22.5 mm), the median absolute RPEs for BTAL, segmented BUII, and composite BUII were 0.25, 0.18, and 0.37 D, respectively, with significant differences between BTAL and composite BUII (p = 0.028) and segmented BUII and composite BUII (p = 0.018). In long eyes (AL > 26 mm), the median absolute RPEs were 0.21, 0.20, and 0.28 D for BTAL, segmented BUII, and composite BUII, respectively.
conclusionsBTAL was non-inferior to composite BUII in absolute RPE. BTAL is an accurate and useful intraocular lens power calculation formula, even in eyes with short and long AL.
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.