ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Accuracy of 7 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure glaucoma eyes, according to axial length and anterior chamber depth.
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 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.
- Association of ocular biometrics with clinical severity in acute angle-closure glaucoma with cataract: a retrospective study.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Effect of Shallow Anterior Chamber on Postoperative Refractive Status in Patients of Age-Related Cataract.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
purposeTo assess the impact of Axial Length (AL) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) on the performance of the Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II (BU II), SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay 2 and Hoffer Q formulas when calculating intraocular lens power in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) patients.
settingEye hospital, Wen Zhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China.
designRetrospective, consecutive case series.
methodsPatients who underwent cataract surgery diagnosed with PACG or not were included. The main outcome measures comprised mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute refractive error (MAE), median absolute refractive error (MedAE). Additionally, the proportions of eyes with postoperative refractive errors within ± 0.25 diopter (D), ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on AL and ACD.
resultsA total of 116 eyes were included, with 66 in the PACG group and 50 in the control group. The PACG group showed significantly larger MAEs compared to the control group. In PACG eyes, the BUII formula tends to cause negative residual refractive errors, while the Kane, EVO, and Holladay 2 formulas often lead to positive ones (P < 0.01). Notably, the SRK/T and Haigis formulas demonstrated better predictability for ME (P < 0.01). PACG patients with an AL under 22 mm or an ACD under 2.5 mm have lower IOL power calculation predictability (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis shows that PACG eyes with both AL under 22 mm and ACD under 2.5 mm have the lowest predictability and are most prone to significant prediction errors (P < 0.05). A negative correlation was found between postoperative prediction error and AL.
conclusionsPACG eyes showed lower prediction accuracy, especially in short ALs and shallow ACD cases. SRK/T and Haigis formulas had better ME predictability. The study stresses optimizing IOL power calculation formulas for PACG eyes, considering AL and ACD effects.
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.