ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Impact of Best Corrected Final Visual Acuity on the Performance of Intraocular Lens Power Calculations.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Visual and Refractive Results of Two Different Presbyopia Correcting Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Improved IOL Power Calculation With Femtosecond Laser Enhanced Refractive Outcome Prediction.Translational vision science & technology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the best-corrected final visual acuity (BCFVA) on the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations. Design Setting and Methods: This is a retrospective observational study in a private practice setting, Lynwood, California, USA. We analyzed 1107 eyes undergoing standard monofocal cataract surgery, with IOL power calculated using the Barrett Universal II formula. We evaluated the Mean Prediction Error (MPE) and its standard deviation (SD), the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and its SD and the percentage of eyes within ±0.50D and ±1.00D in relation to BCFVA. Results: We analyzed 4 groups with BCFVA noted in LogMAR of ≤0.00, 0.02-0.10, 0.12-0.20 and 0.22-0.30. MPE was -0.030±0.321, -0.018±0.353, 0.015±0.369 and 0.070±0.421 D, respectively. MAE was 0.263±0.186, 0.282±0.213, 0.301±0.214 and 0.354±0.236 D, respectively. The percentage of eyes within ±0.50D was 85.9%, 82.6%, 81.5% and 75.5%, respectively. A subgroup analysis of the 1005 eyes with BCFVA of 0.20 LogMAR or better resulted in an MPE of -0.007±0.354 D, a MAE of 0.285±0.209 D and a percentage of eyes within ±0.50D of 82.8%. The difference between this subgroup and the group of eyes with a BCFVA 0.22-0.30 was statistically significant (p<0.001). Conclusion: Better IOL power predictions were noted by limiting the study to eyes with BCFVA of 0.20 LogMAR or better.
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.