ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Agreement of ocular biometry and evaluation of IOL calculation using a parameter‑hybrid strategy: a comparison of CASIA2, IOL Master 700, and OA2000 in cataract patients.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to explore the agreement of biometric measurements and evaluate a parameter-hybrid strategy for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations among CASIA2, IOL Master 700, and OA2000 in cataract patients.
methodsPreoperative measurements were obtained from all three devices. Parameters included axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), keratometry (Km, Kf, Ks), white-to-white distance (WTW), and corneal cylinder (CYL). Since the CASIA2 does not provide AL measurement, a hybrid calculation strategy was designed. IOL power was calculated using the Barrett Universal II formula in four configurations: (1) IOLMaster 700 (standalone), (2) OA2000 (standalone), (3) CASIA2-derived anterior segment parameters + IOL Master 700 AL, and (4) CASIA2-derived anterior segment parameters + OA2000 AL. Refractive prediction accuracy was evaluated at one month postoperatively. Statistical analyses included repeated-measures ANOVA, the Friedman test, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsThe three SS-OCT devices showed excellent agreement for most parameters. However, clinically significant differences were observed in corneal curvature (Km, Kf, Ks) measurements among devices. The calculated IOL power providing emmetropia showed a statistically significant result. The standard strategy using IOL Master 700 parameters yielded the highest prediction precision (lowest mean absolute error) and the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D of the target refraction. Both hybrid strategies resulted in a systematic hyperopia bias, higher prediction errors, and a reduced proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 D. All strategies maintained safety, with over 91% of eyes within ± 1.00 D.
conclusionsThe hybrid strategy introduces a hyperopia bias and reduces refractive prediction accuracy. Using a single, consistent device for preoperative measurements is recommended for routine cataract surgery. The hybrid approach may serve only as a contingency in complex cases.
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.