ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis.
Article in Indian journal of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the precision of six intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay I, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q-among myopic patients undergoing cataract surgery.
methodsThis retrospective study included 164 eyes from 131 patients with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with monofocal IOL implantation at a tertiary referral center between 2018 and 2021 Several biometric data points were recorded using the IOLMaster 700. Additionally, refractive prediction error was observed and defined as the difference between predicted and postoperative spherical equivalents. Formula performance was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), mean numerical error, median absolute error, and proportion of eyes achieving predefined refractive accuracy (±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±1.00 D, and ± 2.00 D).
resultsBarrett Universal II showed the lowest calculation of MAE (0.54 ± 0.71 D), followed by SRK/T (0.57 ± 0.75 D) and Haigis (0.61 ± 0.69 D). Barrett Universal II demonstrated significant predictive accuracy compared with Holladay I, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q ( P < 0.05), while no statistically significant differences were observed when compared to SRK/T and Haigis. Besides, it resulted in the highest proportions of eyes within ± 0.25 D (36.6%), ±0.50 D (59.1%), ±1.00 D (88.4%), and ± 2.00 D (98.8%). The absolute prediction error increased with AL ( P < 0.05), whereas there was no significant correlation with keratometry.
conclusionIn highly myopic eyes, Barrett Universal II showed numerically lower refractive prediction errors, with overall accuracy comparable to SRK/T and Haigis. No formula demonstrated consistent statistical superiority, indicating broadly equivalent performance among the leading formulas in this population.
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.