ReviewInternational ophthalmology2025
Intraocular lens power calculation in cataract patients with keratoconus: Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Review in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of astigmatism in keratoconus with therapeutic refractive surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Challenges in Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advances in IOL calculations in patients with keratoconus.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in cataract patients with keratoconus (KC).
methodsThis study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statementand and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024568997). Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for retrospective and prospective clinical studies published until October 2024. The outcome measurement was the percentage of eyes with a predicted error (PE) within ± 0.50 or ± 1.00 diopter (D).
resultsThe study have nine retrospective clinical trials, involving a total of 637 eyes and 18 calculation formulas. According to the ranking based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve by Bayesian method, the top three formulas were Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (Barrett KC P-PCA), EVO2.0, and Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus measured posterior corneal astigmatism (Barrett KC M-PCA) on the percentage of PE within ± 0.50 D, and the comparison between the three formulas and Barrett Universal II formula has statistical significance. In the range of ± 1.00D, the top three formulas were Barrett KC P-PCA, Barrett KC M-PCA and Kane for keratoconus formula, and the difference was significant. Thereforewe recommend using the Barrett KC P-PCA formula and the Barrett KC M-PCA formula for calculating IOL power in cataract patients with KC.
conclusionThis study revealed that the KC-specific IOL formulas, notably the Barrett KC P-PCA and Barrett KC M-PCA formulas, demonstrated superior accuracy. In clinical practice, when managing patients with different degrees of KC, surgeons should take into account the individual characteristics of each patient and adopt multiple formulas to improve the accuracy of refractive prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39853565What 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.