ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
The influence of keratometry on the accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in highly myopic eyes.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the influence of keratometry on the predictive accuracy of modern IOL formulas in determining optimal IOL power for cataract patients with high myopia.
methodsA total of 302 eyes from highly myopic patients who had undergone cataract surgery were divided into subgroups based on axial length AL and K. The predictive outcomes were to compare the accuracy of the following formulas: BU II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer-QST, Holladay 2, K6, Kane, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T. For each formula, the ME, MAE, MedAE and the percentage of eyes with PEs within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D were analyzed.
resultsAmong all patients, the Hoffer QST formula achieved the lowest MAE (0.41 D), closely followed by EVO 2.0 (0.42 D). In the axial length subgroups, the Hoffer QST, BU II, and Haigis formulas achieved the lowest MAE (0.35 D) in the long AL group, while K6 achieved the lowest MAE (0.46 D) in the super-long AL group. For the extreme-long AL group, Hoffer QST demonstrated the lowest MAE at 0.41 D, closely followed by EVO 2.0 (0.44 D). In the keratometry subgroups, Hoffer QST consistently showed superior accuracy: in the flat-K group, it attained the lowest MAE (0.35 D) with BU II closely trailing (0.36 D); in the average-K group, it maintained the lowest MAE (0.41 D) followed by EVO 2.0 (0.43 D); and in the steep-K group, it achieved the lowest MAE (0.43 D), closely followed by EVO 2.0 (0.44 D).
conclusionsIn highly myopic eyes, modern IOL formulas demonstrate significantly superior predictive accuracy compared to traditional formulas for the different keratometry, with Hoffer QST and EVO 2.0 exhibiting the best performance in this study.
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.