ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Four Lens Power Formulas for Sutureless Scleral-Fixated Carlevale Lens.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for sutureless scleral fixation (SSF) of the Carlevale IOL. Methods: A prospective, single-center, interventional case series was conducted to compare predicted refractive outcomes using the SRK/T, Barrett II, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas in patients undergoing SSF of the Carlevale IOL. The main outcomes included mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 and ±1.0 diopters (D). Results: Sixty-nine eyes of 69 patients were included. Only the Barrett II formula resulted in a systematic myopic error (p=0.014). The PE of SRKT, HofferQ, and Holladay 1 was closer to 0, indicating that the post-operative refractive outcome was nearer to the predicted value than that of Barrett II (p=0.002, p<0.001, p=0.003, respectively). MedAE and MAE ranged from 0.41 to 0.53 D and 0.6 to 0.67 D, respectively, without significant differences between the formulas. The percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D varied from 47.8 to 56.5% and 79.7 to 87%, respectively, showing no significant differences across the assessed formulas. Conclusion: The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas provide favorable refractive outcomes for the SSF of Carlevale IOL. The Barrett II formula is less accurate and is not recommended due to its systematic myopic refractive error.
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.