ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research2025
Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Cataract Surgery in Patients with Keratoconus.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predictive Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Cataract Surgery in Keratoconus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis [Letter].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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the refractive accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) undergoing cataract surgery. Methods: This retrospective case series included the medical records of patients with KCN who underwent optical biometry and cataract surgery with IOL implantation. The predicted spherical equivalent (SE) values were calculated using the Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and SRK II formulas. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was performed for eyes with available data on anterior chamber depth to compare the accuracy of Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Kane KCN formulas. The mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error, and the percentage of eyes within a PE of Results: Forty-seven eyes of 30 patients were included. The MAE was significantly different among the Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and SRK II formulas. The Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q formulas led to a hyperopic refractive shift. The SRK/T and SRK II formulas tended toward a myopic refractive outcome. The MAE was lowest for the SRK/T formula (0.39 D), followed by the Holladay 1 (0.48 D), Hoffer Q (0.59 D), and SRK II (0.87 D). Statistical analysis revealed a significantly lower MAE for the SRK/T formula compared to the Hoffer Q and SRK II formulas ( Conclusion: The SRK/T was the most accurate IOL power calculation formula in this study, and Holladay 1 could be an alternative choice. SRK II had the lowest accuracy in predicting refractive outcomes. Among modern formulas, Barrett True-K demonstrated the highest accuracy in eyes with KCN.
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.