ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Residual refraction after myopic implantable collamer lens implantation: clinical data vs optical models.
Article in International 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 predictive accuracy of four optical modelling scenarios for postoperative refraction after myopic Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation using patient-specific clinical biometry and to validate the results against clinical postoperative refraction and vault data.
methodsThis retrospective study analysed 215 eyes following myopic ICL implantation. Four optical vergence models were implemented using patient-specific preoperative biometry and measured postoperative vault. The scenarios differed in their treatment of corneal and phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) thickness: (A) thick cornea and thick pIOL; (B) thin cornea and thick pIOL; (C) thick cornea and thin pIOL; (D) thin cornea and thin pIOL. Postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was defined by objective autorefraction, with a sensitivity analysis for the subjective refraction in a subset of eyes. Prediction accuracy was assessed using mean error, mean absolute error, refractive accuracy thresholds, and Bland-Altman analysis. Two-dimensional dispersion was evaluated using standard distance deviation and standard deviational ellipses (SDE). Ellipse-aligned variance was compared using Brown-Forsythe tests with Bonferroni correction. The prediction accuracy of all scenarios were contrasted against the standard.
resultsScenarios assuming a centrally thick pIOL (A and B) systematically overestimated postoperative refraction, with biases exceeding + 1.0 D and wide limits of agreement (> ± 3.0 D). Thin-pIOL models demonstrated substantially improved agreement. Scenario C showed the lowest bias (0.30 ± 0.48 D), narrowest limits of agreement (- 0.62-1.21 D), smallest SDE area, and significantly reduced variance along both ellipse-aligned axes compared with Scenarios A and B (p < 0.001). No significant dispersion difference was observed between Scenarios C and D. Scenario C achieved prediction accuracy that was very close to that of the manufacturer's calculation algorithm.
conclusionFor myopic ICLs with central thinning and a central aperture, optical models assuming a thin pIOL provide postoperative refractive prediction. Model selection should prioritize optical relevance along the visual axis rather than anatomical complexity.
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.