ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Spherical equivalent prediction analysis in intraocular lens power calculations using Barrett Universal II formula variations.
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.
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.
- Same Defocus, Different Vision: The Role of Astigmatism Type in Pseudophakic Visual Acuity Loss.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Six Toric IOL Power Calculation Formulas, Including Four Available on the ESCRS Online Calculator.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the prediction accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BUII) intraocular lens (IOL) formula variations, including optional biometric parameters and sum-of-segments (SOS) axial length (AL) modification, for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery.
settingSingle-center academic university hospital.
designRetrospective case series.
methods1340 eyes of 1340 patients undergoing uneventful cataract surgery were analyzed using 5 BUII variants: with only 1 optional parameter (lens thickness [BUII LT] or white-to-white [BUII WTW]), 2 optional parameters (BUII STD), without optional parameters (BUII WØ), and adjusted for SOS AL (BUII TAL). A single swept-source optical biometer (ARGOS) was used. Spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE, trueness), SD (precision), and absolute SEQ-PE (accuracy) were calculated with the online Eyetemis tool. Statistical comparisons were conducted using robust statistical methods across the entire cohort and subgroups based on AL: short (<22.0 mm), average (22.0 to 24.99 mm), and long (≥25.0 mm).
resultsAll formula variations showed high refractive accuracy. BUII TAL provided superior precision and best accuracy, particularly outperforming other variants in short eyes ( P < .01). For average and long eyes, accuracy and precision differences between the modified BUII TAL and standard BUII STD were minimal and not statistically significant. The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 diopters prediction error was highest for BUII TAL and BUII STD (80%), slightly outperforming other variants.
conclusionsBUII formula variants demonstrated excellent refractive prediction accuracy. SOS adjustment and optional biometric parameters notably improved precision and accuracy, especially in short eyes.
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.