ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Assessing the interchangeability of keratometry measurements from four biometric devices in intraocular lens power calculations: insights into the predictive accuracy of five modern IOL formulas.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Impact of Dry Eye Disease and Lipid-Containing Artificial Tears on Keratometric Reproducibility and Intraocular Lens Calculation in Cataract Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAchieving accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is crucial for successful refractive outcomes in cataract surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the interchangeability of keratometry (K) values obtained from four biometric devices (IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, Pentacam, and iTrace) and assess the predictive accuracy of five modern IOL calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and PEARL-DGS) when using K values from these different devices.
methodsThis prospective study included K values obtained from four biometric devices for use in five IOL power calculation formulas. Predictive accuracy was assessed using multiple statistical parameters, including standard deviation (SD), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE). The interchangeability of devices was evaluated by comparing predictive outcomes across devices and formulas, with statistical analyses focusing on consistency and agreement.
resultsPredictive accuracy across the five IOL formulas was stable and showed no statistically significant differences when using keratometry measurements from the same biometric device. However, significant variability was noted when comparing K values from different devices using the same formula. The SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) showed higher consistency in predictive accuracy compared to Scheimpflug-based Pentacam and ray-tracing-based iTrace. Despite this inter-device variability, all five IOL formulas showed overall robust performance across different devices.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that keratometry measurements from different biometric devices are not fully interchangeable. SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) provided superior consistency in refractive prediction accuracy. Therefore, clinicians should carefully select biometric device-formula combinations based on the specific measurement principles and desired refractive outcomes. Further research involving larger sample sizes, additional IOL types and biometric devices, as well as assessment of surgeon-related factors, is warranted to optimize refractive accuracy in cataract surgery.
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.