ReviewJournal of ophthalmology2026
Comparisons of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas for Eyes With Astigmatism: Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- Comparisons of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas for Eyes With Astigmatism: Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of different formulas for calculating toric intraocular lens (IOL) power. Methods: PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published from 2015 to 2025. Numbers of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were synthesized for the meta-analysis. Besides, continuous vector analysis of mean centroid magnitudes was quantitatively analyzed to assess directional bias in refractive outcomes. Results: Nine retrospective clinical studies, including 1863 patients, 1959 eyes, and 19 calculation formulas, were identified. According to the ranking based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve by the Bayesian method, the three highest ranking formulas are EVO MPCA (86.9%), Kane (81.8%), and Hoffer QST (75.9%) in PE within ±0.5D. In the range of 1.0D, the three highest ranking formulas are "EVO MPCA" (83.7%), "Haigis" (70.6%), and "Kane" (70.1%). As for the comparison of mean centroid, the highest three are "Z CALC2 PPCA" (87.0%), "Holladay 2" (79.3%), and "ATCTCRP" (78.8%). Conclusion: This network meta-analysis indicated that EVO MPCA formulas performed best among the 19 toric IOL power formulas.
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.