ArticleScientific reports2025
Accuracy comparison of six intraocular lens formulas using total and standard keratometry measurements with the iolmaster 700.
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.
- The Role of Sex in Ocular Biometry: A Large-Scale Study of Cataract Candidates in Greece.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of six intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using total keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) measurements from the IOLMaster 700 in various ocular subgroups. A total of 212 eyes were analyzed. The mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD) of prediction error, and the median absolute error (MedAE) were calculated for each formula. and the prediction accuracy was compared across different subgroups categorized by axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and other ocular parameters. Results showed that the Barrett Universal II (BU II) formula consistently had the lowest MAEs and MedAEs in the overall sample and most subgroups. The BU II formula performed particularly well in subgroups with thin LT when using TK mode and in medium LT subgroups using K mode. Comparison between TK and K modes showed no consistent superiority, with each mode outperforming the other in specific subgroups. The accuracy of the BU II formula was not influenced by ocular parameters, suggesting its robustness across different patient groups. In conclusion, the BU II formula demonstrated superior accuracy compared to other formulas, especially in specific subgroups, and its performance remained consistent regardless of ocular measurement variations.
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.