ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Precision in Intraocular Lens Calculation for Chinese Cataract Patients with Prior History of Radial Keratotomy.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. 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.
- Research progress on intraocular lens power calculation in cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the predictive accuracy of eight traditional and contemporary intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in Chinese cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy (RK). Patients and Methods: RK patients who underwent phacoemulsification with IOL implantation were retrospectively recruited. Refractive prediction errors (RPE)were calculated for eight formulas: Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K, Camellin Calossi Camellin (CCC), Kane, EVO, Pearl-DGS, and Jin-AI. The study compared RPE, mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentages of eyes achieving prediction errors within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.0, and ±2.0 diopters. Results: This retrospective study analyzed 34 eyes from 21 patients with prior RK surgery. The superior performing IOL power calculation formulas were Jin-AI (MAE = 0.64 D, MedAE = 0.49 D), Barrett True-K (MAE = 0.58 D, MedAE = 0.535 D), and EVO (MAE=0.59 D, MedAE = 0.538 D). These three formulas demonstrated comparable accuracy, with 47.1%, 44.1%, and 44.1% of eyes achieving prediction errors within ±0.50 D, respectively. The Haigis-L and Pearl-DGS formulas exhibited significantly higher prediction errors in eyes with more than 12 RK incisions. Conclusion: The Jin-AI, Barrett True-K, and EVO formulas demonstrated superior accuracy for IOL power calculation in Chinese cataract patients with prior RK. The Jin-AI formula, a novel artificial intelligence-based formula derived from Chinese individuals, presents a promising option for post-RK IOL calculation, while external validation studies across diverse ethnic groups are essential.
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.