ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Accuracy of new-generation and traditional intraocular lens power calculation formulas in pediatric primary implantation.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of capsular bag fixation versus ciliary sulcus fixation IOL implantation in children patients: meta-analysis.International ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Twenty Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Medium-Long Eyes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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 compare the prediction accuracy of new-generation and traditional intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric primary IOL implantation and identify factors influencing refractive prediction errors.
settingZhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangzhou, China.
designRetrospective consecutive case-series study.
methodsThe prediction error (PE) was calculated for Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, and Ladas Super Formula (LSF) in pediatric primary IOL implantation. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age, axial length (AL), average keratometry, surgical procedure, and IOL type. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with significant refractive surprise.
results83 patients (108 eyes) were included in the study. Significant differences in both PE and absolute PE were observed among formulas ( P < .001). The SRK/T and Kane formulas demonstrated lower mean predicted error (ME) and median absolute error (MedAE), whereas LSF and Haigis formulas showed higher ME and MedAE, respectively. Patients who were older age and had longer AL exhibited improved predictive accuracy. No significant differences in prediction accuracy were found between eyes with different surgical procedures or different IOL types. Multivariate regression analysis showed that younger age and shorter preoperative AL were predictors of significant refractive surprise across formulas.
conclusionsThe predictive accuracy of IOL formulas in pediatric primary IOL implantation remains suboptimal, with the SRK/T and Kane formulas performing relatively better. Younger age and shorter AL remain major predictors of refractive surprise, while surgical procedure and IOL type show no significant association. Further development of pediatric-specific IOL power formulas is warranted.
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.