ArticleAdvances in ophthalmology practice and research
Comparison of the accuracy of six intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.
Article in Advances in ophthalmology practice and research. 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the accuracy of six intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods in post-myopic-LASIK eyes. Methods: Post-myopic-LASIK patients scheduled for cataract surgery were enrolled. Mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), and median absolute error (MedAE) of ASCRS (ASCRS-Max, ASCRS-Average, ASCRS-Min), EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, Barrett True-K no-history, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L were compared. The ASCRS method employed four formulas, including Shammas-PL, Haigis-L, Potvin-Hill Pentacam, and Barrett True-K no-history. Trueness, precision, and accuracy indices were evaluated by comparing trimmed-mean values with heteroscedasticity adjustment. Subgroup analyses were performed based on K value, axial length (AL), and corneal decentered ablation, respectively. Factors influencing prediction errors were analyzed. Results: Totally, 87 eyes were analyzed. ASCRS-Min had the lowest MAE (0.79 D) and MedAE (0.62 D), followed by EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and Barrett True-K no-history. It also had the highest percentage of absolute errors within 1.00 D. All methods outperformed ASCRS-Max in accuracy indices, and ASCRS-Min and EVO 2.0 showed superior accuracy indices compared to Shammas-PL and Haigis-L. In the subgroups of lower K value, longer AL, and larger decentration of ablation zone, ASCRS-Min, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and Barrett True-K no-history generated statistically lower MedAEs than ASCRS-Max. The accuracy of Shammas-PL was associated with AL; the accuracy of Haigis-L was associated with K value and AL; no other significant associations were found. Conclusions: Generally, ASCRS-Min, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and Barrett True-K no-history achieve relatively better accuracy than the other methods, which might be considered as first choices for IOL power calculation in post-myopic-LASIK 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.