ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2025
Accuracy of IOL power calculation in pediatric aphakia secondary implantation.
Article in International journal of 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.
- Research on refractive power calculation formula of intraocular lens based on the principle of double thick lens imaging.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas with/without preoperative aphakic anterior chamber depth (aph-ACD) in pediatric aphakia.
methodsA total of 102 pediatric patients (150 eyes) undergoing secondary IOL implantation were divided into two groups (in-the-bag or ciliary sulcus). Prediction error was calculated for 9 IOL power calculation formulas, including: 1) not requiring ACD: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T; 2) usable without or with entering ACD: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, and Ladas Artificial Intelligence Super (Ladas AI); 3) requiring ACD: Haigis, Kane, and Pearl-DGS. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 D were calculated.
resultsFor the BUII, EVO 2.0, and Ladas AI, with aph-ACD demonstrated a higher MedAE compared to without aph-ACD (BUII: 1.27
conclusionThe introduction of aph-ACD does not improve the accuracy of IOL calculation for pediatric aphakia, regardless of in-the-bag or sulcus IOL secondary implantation. The relationship between aph-ACD and effective lens position in pediatric aphakia warrants further study.
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.