ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Considerations on the Haigis formula: Are better outcomes possible with tuning?
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmented Versus Global Optimization of Intraocular Lens Constants Across Axial Length: A Multi-Lens, Multi-Formula Comparison Using a Disjoint Training Dataset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Simplification of a Three-Constant Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula to a Single-Constant Approach: The Haigis Formula.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Planning Adjustment of Toric Capsular Bag Intraocular Lens Axis to Minimise Refractive Cylinder Outcome-A Calculation Concept Based on Vergence Transformations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparisons of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas for Eyes With Astigmatism: Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Longitudinal Biometric Changes and Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula Accuracy in Delayed Cataract Surgery Cases.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Considerations on the Haigis formula: Are better outcomes possible with tuning?Acta ophthalmologica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo design a vergence-based lens power formula based on the classical Haigis formula for better outcomes while retaining the original formula architecture.
methodsFour new formula variants (A-D) incorporating a sum of segments correction for axial length, harmonic mean of corneal radii instead of arithmetic mean (all variants), and differing combinations of lower keratometer index (C, D) and an additional term (a3) representing the lens thickness in the effective lens position (B, D) were assessed in an analysis based on four datasets of IOLMaster 700 biometric data for eyes treated with the Hoya Vivinex lens (dataset 1), Alcon SA60AT lens (2), Johnson & Johnson ZCB00 lens (3), and the Bausch & Lomb MX60 lens (4). All parameters (formula constants and keratometer index) were calculated by nonlinear iterative optimisation techniques for minimising the root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE). Performance was assessed in terms of the final RMSPE.
resultsAll four variants showed reductions in RMSPE ranging from 2.8% to 12.6% over the original Haigis formula. For each of the four datasets, variants B and D (with the additional a3 constant) performed better in this respect than variants A and C. In all four cases, variants C and D (with the adjusted keratometer index) performed slightly better than A and B, respectively.
conclusionAlthough not amenable to statistical analysis, the % improvements in RMSPE would appear to be clinically relevant. However, the benefit has to be proven in a prospective multicentric study with a large sample size.
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.