ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Refractive prediction accuracy of new generation IOL calculation formulas in glaucomatous and control eyes after cataract surgery.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the deviation from the target refraction after cataract surgery between glaucomatous and control eyes using a third-generation formula (SRK/T), a fourth-generation formula (Barrett Universal II), and new-generation formulas (Hill-RBF, Kane, Pearl-DGS, Hoffer QST, EVO, Cooke K6). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 80 eyes of 80 patients who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification between 2017 and 2022. Among them, 22 had primary open-angle glaucoma, 27 had pseudoexfoliative glaucoma (PEG), and 31 served as controls. Biometric measurements were obtained preoperatively, and postoperative refractions were measured with an autorefractometer. The mean follow-up was 2 years.
resultsThere was no significant difference among the groups in terms of age, gender, intraocular lens (IOL) power, follow-up duration, axial length, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, central corneal thickness, or intraocular pressure (all p > 0.05). All formulas produced a mean myopic prediction error in all three groups, with the highest deviation observed in the PEG group (mean: - 0.24 D). The smallest mean errors in all groups were with the Barrett Universal II (- 0.03 D, - 0.16 D, and - 0.07 D) and Hoffer QST (- 0.05 D, - 0.20 D, and - 0.08 D) formulas. The refractive prediction error was significantly lower for all formulas in eyes implanted with aspheric IOLs (mean: - 0.07 D) compared to spherical IOLs (mean: - 0.22 D) (p < 0.05).
conclusionDespite advances in IOL calculation formulas, PEG patients showed the highest prediction errors, likely due to zonular weakness. In these cases, selecting Barrett Universal II or Hoffer QST formulas may improve refractive outcomes. Aspheric IOLs also showed better prediction accuracy, though their benefit may vary with pupil size and IOL alignment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41003854What 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.