ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
A two-step formula constant optimization strategy for minimal standard deviation and zero mean prediction error in IOL power calculation.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the precision and accuracy performance of a two-step approach for optimizing lens formula constants (FC) with a refractive offset correction (RO) as a second tuning parameter.
methodsUsing IOLMaster 700 biometric data from 4 datasets (886/613/821/467 eyes treated with the Hoya Vivinex/Johnson&Johnson ZCB00/Alcon SA60AT/Bausch&Lomb MX60 lens), and the power of the implanted lens and postoperative spherical equivalent refraction, FC and RO were optimized for SRKT, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Haigis formulae using an iterative nonlinear optimization for RMSPE and sequentially according to Gatinel, optimizing first FC for standard deviation prediction error (SDPE) and then RO by the resulting mean prediction error.
resultsThe simple two-step approach yielded comparable results for the FC and RO for all four formulae and datasets under test. The differences in the formula prediction error were commonly in the third decimals comparing both optimization strategies without clinical relevance. Direct optimization of the FC for SDPE showed large offsets in the formula constant for all datasets and especially for the Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae, resulting in systematic refractive offset values in the formula prediction.
conclusionsThis simple two-step approach using FC with a second tuning parameter performs excellently for the four formulae and four datasets under test and allows for both reducing the scatter and zeroing the refractive offset. Multicentric studies with other populations and biometers are required to further investigate the clinical applicability.
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.