ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Refractive Prediction Errors of Toric Intraocular Lens Formulae.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Six Toric IOL Power Calculation Formulas, Including Four Available on the ESCRS Online Calculator.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
Introduction Toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) are effective in correcting astigmatism; however, with multiple IOL toric formulae available, identifying the most accurate formula is important. The IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) provides two in-built toric IOL formulae, the Barrett TK Toric (BTT) and Haigis Toric (HT), which sometimes differ in astigmatism predictions for a particular IOL power. This study investigates the accuracy of these formulae in predicting postoperative refraction. Methods This retrospective study included 52 eyes from 52 patients undergoing uncomplicated cataract surgery with AcrySof IQ Toric IOL implantation (Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, United States). Biometric data, including axial length, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and total keratometry, were measured using the IOLMaster 700. Predicted residual spherical equivalence (SE) and astigmatism were calculated using BTT and HT formulae. Postoperative refractive outcomes were assessed at least four weeks post-surgery. Differences in prediction errors in SE and astigmatism were assessed. Results The median absolute error in SE prediction was comparable between BTT and HT formulae (0.195 D vs. 0.185 D; p=1.000), with no significant difference in the proportion of eyes achieving absolute prediction errors ≤0.25 D, ≤0.50 D, ≤0.75 D, or ≤1.00 D. For astigmatism, the HT formula demonstrated lower mean absolute errors (MAE: 0.41±0.33 D) and centroid errors (0.18 D @ 70°) compared to BTT (MAE: 0.47±0.36 D; centroid error: 0.32 D @ 76°; p<0.001). Conclusion Both BTT and HT formulae exhibit similarly high accuracy in predicting postoperative SE. HT performed statistically better for astigmatism prediction; however, the difference was negligible and not clinically significant.
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.