ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of 7 modern IOL power calculation formulas in two PARTIAL-Range of Field IOL designs and a new constant optimization method.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the performance of seven modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in two different PARTIAL-Range of Field (RoF) extend IOL designs, and a novel IOL constant optimization method.
methods200 eyes implanted with Acrysof IQ Vivity or Tecnis Symfony IOL were included. Postoperative refractive outcomes of the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and Pearl DGS formulas were compared. IOL constant is optimized by using ‘three variable optimization’ (TVO) ( https://ioloptimization.com/calculator ). Formula Performance Index (FPI), root-mean-square absolute prediction error (RMSAE), and SD of prediction errors were selected as the primary endpoints.
resultsIn the Vivity group, the FPI in descending order was Cooke K6 (0.613), Kane (0.496), Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.478), Pearl DGS (0.474), BUII (0.430), EVO 2.0 (0.405), and Hoffer QST (0.341). No significant inter-formula differences were found in RMSAE and SD. In the Symfony group, the FPI in descending order was Cooke K6 (0.495), Pearl DGS (0.473), Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.428), BUII (0.403), Kane (0.385), EVO 2.0 (0.352), and Hoffer QST (0.310). Cooke K6 outperformed Hoffer QST (P = 0.032) and Pearl DGS (P = 0.027) in SD. The optimized A-constants vary among formulas derived from the same IOL model (Vivity: range 118.97 to 119.14; Symfony: range 119.17 to 119.36). All formulas achieved a mean prediction error of less than 0.012 D after constant optimization.
conclusionsModern IOL power calculation formulas exhibit high accuracy for PARTIAL-RoF extend IOLs, with performance varying by IOL model. The TVO proved to be an effective and convenient tool.
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.