ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Accuracy of eight intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with ciliary sulcus implantation.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for ciliary sulcus-implanted IOL.
methodsPatients with IOL (Tecnis ZA9003) implanted in the ciliary sulcus were reviewed from March 1, 2021 to November 1, 2024 at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangzhou, China. Optic capture was used at all case. The prediction error (PE) and mean absolute error (MAE) of eight new and old formulas including Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, Radial Basis Function 3.0 (RBF 3.0), and SRK/T formula were compared. The second-generation Wang-Koch adjustment (WK2) for axial length (AL) > 26.5 mm and adjusted surgeon factor for IOL implanted in the ciliary sulcus (SF_cs) were used to modify Holladay 1 formula.
results56 eyes from 56 patients were enrolled. The performance of each formula ranked by mean PE from lowest to highest were Holladay 1 (- 0.42 D), BUII (- 0.47 D), EVO (- 0.49 D), Haigis (- 0.49 D), RBF 3.0 (- 0.52 D), SRK/T (- 0.53 D), Kane (- 0.56 D), and Hoffer QST (- 0.58 D). BUII formula reached the lowest MAE (0.68 D), while Hoffer QST and Kane formula had the highest MAE (0.75 D). Holladay 1, modified with WK2 and a SF_sc of 1.37, achieved a mean PE of 0 ± 0.67 D, the lowest MAE (0.52) and MedAE (0.40), as well as the highest percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D.
conclusionAmong the eight included formulas, Holladay 1 formula modified with WK2 adjustment and a SF_cs of 1.37 was recommended for patients with sulcus-implanted optic-captured ZA9003 IOL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40715878What 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.