ArticleSaudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
Comparison of Barrett and Kane keratoconic formulae in eyes with only posterior corneal changes.
Article in Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of Barrett Universal II (UII), Barrett total K, Barrett True-K keratoconus (KC), Kane, and Kane KC formulae in eyes with only posterior corneal changes.
methodsA retrospective case series of eyes with normal anterior keratometry with only posterior corneal changes, aged between 45 and 75 years, and had undergone cataract surgery was analyzed. Subjects with any systemic illness, previous corneal surgery, corneal opacity, previous history of corneal inflammation, and subjects with missing data were excluded. For all patients, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were done using Barrett UII, Barrett total K, Barrett True-K KC predicted, Barrett True-K KC measured, Kane, and Kane KC formulae. For all patients, mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with absolute error spherical equivalent within 0.25D, 0.5D, and >0.51D were noted.
resultsTwenty-one eyes of 13 patients with a mean ± standard deviation age of 61.92 ± 7.08 years had undergone cataract surgery. The MedAE was least with predicted Barrett True-K KC (0.26), whereas it was highest with Barrett total K (0.31). However, the Kruskal-Wallis test did not reveal any statistical significant difference in absolute error among the various formulae. Predicted Barrett KC, Kane, and Kane KC each resulted in the highest percentage of eyes (47.62%) within ±0.25 diopters error. Overall, Barrett UII, measured Barrett KC, Kane, and Kane KC had the highest percentage of eyes (76.19%) within ± 0.50 diopters error.
conclusionThis study has reported the efficacy of various IOL power calculations' formulae in unique cases where anterior corneas were normal and had the abnormal posterior cornea resulting in anterior-posterior asymmetry. Although clinically predicted Barrett True-K KC resulted in the least absolute error, statistically, it did not show any edge over other formulae including Kane KC in eyes with only posterior corneal changes.
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.