SynthesisOphthalmic research2026
Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Cataract Eyes after Vitrectomy with Silicone Oil Tamponade: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Ophthalmic research, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of the study was to systematically compare the accuracy of artificial intelligence and traditional intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in cataract eyes after vitrectomy with silicone oil tamponade.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to select relevant studies published up to October 29, 2025. A total of 12 formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Holladay I, Holladay II, RBF, LSF, EVO, Kane, and Pearl-DGS) were included for final comparison. The primary outcomes were the percentage of eyes with prediction errors (PE) within ± 0.50 D and ± 1.00 D.
resultsThis meta-analysis included 7 studies comprising 1,060 eyes. Overall, compared to traditional formulas, newer formulas demonstrated relatively higher accuracy. The results indicated that among all the formulas being compared, the optimal formula was Kane. For the percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 D, Kane had the highest precision. For the IOL power percentage within ± 1.00 D, EVO performed the best, with Kane also ranking highly. Furthermore, RBF also performed very well.
conclusionKane and EVO appear to be better choices for silicone oil-filled eyes after vitrectomy.
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.