ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Refractive Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Nonagenarians: A Retrospective Study.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the refractive predictive accuracy of three intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, and Haigis) in patients aged 90 years and older. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 62 eyes of 62 patients aged ≥90 years who underwent cataract surgery between April 2021 and March 2023. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon using a single IOL model (HOYA XY1). Preoperative biometry was performed using the IOL Master 700. The accuracy of each formula was evaluated by comparing the predicted spherical equivalent to the manifest refraction at 3 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), with secondary outcomes including the percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D of the predicted refraction. Results: The mean age of the patients was 92.2 ± 2.0 years. The MAE was 0.504 ± 0.363 D for SRK/T, 0.441 ± 0.339 D for Barrett Universal II, and 0.503 ± 0.388 D for Haigis. The RMSAE was 0.607 ± 0.552 D for SRK/T, 0.532 ± 0.463 D for Barrett Universal II, and 0.565 ± 0.496 D for Haigis. No statistically significant difference in MAE and RMSAE was found among the three formulas (p = 0.12, p = 0.54). The proportion of eyes within ±0.5 D of the predicted refraction was highest for the Barrett Universal II formula at 64.5%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found no biometric parameters to be significant predictors of achieving a refractive error within ±0.5 D. Conclusion: In patients aged ≥90 years, the SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, and Haigis formulas demonstrated comparable refractive accuracy. In this demographic, overall refractive outcomes may be more influenced by the reliability of biometric measurements and the minimization of intraoperative risks than by the choice of formula.
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.