ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2025
Theoretical influence of segmented axial length on intraocular lens power calculation in short eyes.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the segmented axial length (AL) provided by the Argos with the traditional AL provided by the IOLMaster 700 in short eyes and assess their impact on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.
settingIRCCS Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy.
designRetrospective case series.
methodsPatients undergoing cataract or refractive surgery preoperative examinations were enrolled if their AL was <22.0 mm with the IOLMaster 700. The ALs given by the 2 biometers were compared. Using the formulas included in the ESCRS IOL calculator, the IOL power for a schematic eye was calculated with both AL measurements.
resultsIn 78 eyes, the traditional mean AL (21.22 ± 0.54 mm) was shorter than the segmented AL (21.29 ± 0.51 mm, P < .0001) with a proportional bias (r2 = 0.3312, P < .0001). The difference decreased with thicker lenses (r2 = 0.4941, P < .0001). Based on the IOL power calculated when the traditional AL was entered and the first negative refractive value was aimed at, the predicted refraction was more myopic with the Argos AL (P < .0001). The difference ranged from -0.18 ± 0.13 D (Cooke K6) to -0.24 ± 0.18 D (Barrett Universal II). The same IOL power would have been recommended by the ESCRS IOL calculator in only 40% to 50% of eyes, irrespective of formula used. The difference was minimized when the sum-of-segments option was used.
conclusionsAL measurements provided by the Argos and IOLMaster 700 are not interchangeable for IOL power calculation in short eyes <22.0 mm.
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.