ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Accuracy of twelve intraocular lens calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.
Article in International 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
purposeTo investigate the accuracy, stability, and influencing factors of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in highly myopic cataract patients.
methodsRetrospective Case Series. Clinical data were collected from highly myopic cataract patients who underwent cataract extraction surgery at Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, between January 2024 and January 2025. Patients were stratified into subgroups based on axial length, keratometry, anterior chamber depth and axial length to corneal radius ratio (AL/r). The prediction error (PE), absolute error (AE), root-mean-square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and the percentage of eyes with an absolute error within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D were recorded and compared for the following 12 IOL formulas: Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, Castrop, Kane, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, Hoffer QST, SRK-T, Haigis, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and Hoffer Q. Statistical analysis was performed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Friedman test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Dunn's test, and Cochran Q test.
resultsA total of 255 patients (255 eyes) were included in this study, comprising 113 males and 142 females, with a mean age of 57.8 ± 9.9 years. The difference in absolute errors among the 12 IOL formulas was statistically significant (χ
conclusionFor highly myopic cataract patients, modern IOL formulas demonstrated superior accuracy compared to traditional formulas. The accuracy was predominantly influenced by axial length, with keratometry and anterior chamber depth playing minor roles. The Hoffer QST and Pearl-DGS formulas, in particular, showed consistent and stable performance.
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.