ArticleKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2026
Accuracy of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons Online Calculator for Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.
Article in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the refractive accuracy of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) online intraocular lens (IOL) calculator for enhanced monofocal IOLs and to compare its performance with commonly used IOL formulas, including Barrett Universal II (BUII), SRK/T, and Haigis.
methodsThis retrospective case series included 95 eyes from 95 patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification with ICB00 IOL. IOL power was calculated using the ESCRS calculator (Cooke K6, Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] 2.0, Hill Radial-Basis-Function [RBF] 3.0, Hoffer Q Savini/Taroni, Kane, and Pearl DGS), and BUII, SRK/T, and Haigis formulas using IOLMaster 700. Prediction error (PE), mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), the proportion of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction, and the formula performance index (FPI) were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively with and without constant optimization.
resultsWithout constant optimization, the Kane formula achieved the lowest MedAE (0.22 D) and the highest proportion of eyes with PE within ±0.50 D (85.3%). With constant optimization, the Kane and Cooke K6 formulas showed the lowest MedAE (0.18 D each), and Kane and EVO 2.0 demonstrated the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (85.3%). The proportion of eyes within ±0.50 D showed statistically significant overall differences among formulas under both conditions (p < 0.05 each), although no significant pairwise differences were observed after optimization. The highest FPI values were observed for Cooke K6, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Kane, whereas SRK/T and Haigis consistently demonstrated the lowest performance.
conclusionsThe ESCRS online IOL calculator demonstrated superior MedAE and FPI compared with traditional formulas (SRK/T and Haigis), while the accuracy in achieving a postoperative refraction within ±0.50 D was comparable among eyes implanted with enhanced monofocal IOLs. These results support the clinical utility of the ESCRS calculator for accurate and efficient IOL power calculation, regardless of constant optimization status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42070777What 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.