ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of 10 biometric formulas in combined phacovitrectomy for different underlying retinal pathology.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Combined phacovitrectomy for retinal detachment and cataract-macular attachment and visual fixation as predictors of postoperative refractive error.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The refractive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) formulas varies in eyes that undergo combined phacovitrectomy for different underlying vitreoretinal pathology. A total of 401 eyes that underwent uncomplicated phacovitrectomy (23-25 g) with implantation of a plate haptic IOL (CT Asphina 409 M) in the capsular bag between April 2020 and December 2022 were included in the study. Inclusion criteria were postoperative best corrected visual acuity of 0.4 LogMAR or better at least 8 weeks after surgery. The Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hill-Radial Basis Function (Hill-RBFv3.0), Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Holladay II, Kane, K6, Pearl-DGS and SRK/T formulas were compared for their accuracy in mean absolute error (MAE). Furthermore, all formulas were additionally tested by using the prediction for an IOL power 0,5 or 1D above the IOL used (IOLdown). Wilcox-Holladay-Wang-Koch (WHWK) statistical tests with Holm correction were applied. The Barrett IOLdown formula showed the lowest refractive prediction error (0.03D; together with Hill IOLdown), lowest MAE (0.40D), lowest median absolute error (MedAE; 0.31D), lowest standard deviation of MAE (0.55D) and lowest root mean squared absolute error (RMSAE; 0,54D). Barrett IOLdown had the highest percentage of eyes with predicted error within ± 0.25D (41.6%), Kane IOLdown within ± 0.50D (70.5%) and ± 0.75D (89%) and Hill IOLdown within ± 1D (95.2%). Except for Haigis, Hoffer Q and Pearl-DGS, all other formulas showed a statistically significantly lower MAE after IOLdown modification. The newest formulas with IOLdown modification performed better than old generation formulas, with Barrett IOLdown exhibiting the best results.
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.