ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formula in secondary scleral fixation using the Yamane technique: a retrospective comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas.
Article in BMC 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the accuracy of Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0 with Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), Hoffer Q and Barrett Universal II (BUII) intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes that have undergone scleral fixation in Yamane technique. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this retrospective study, patients undergoing secondary intraocular lens fixation in Yamane technique between 03/2019 - 04/2024 were included. Prediction errors for EVO 2.0, BUII, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas were calculated by subtracting the actual spherical equivalent from the predicted spherical equivalent. The performance of each method was evaluated by Eyetemis, an online tool for analyzing prediction errors. The tool includes robust t-tests to compare the trimmed means of the data.
results59 eyes met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. All formulas showed myopic mean refractive prediction errors. With regard to spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE), precision of the SEQ-PE and absolute SEQ-PE, there were no significant differences between the formulas examined. The EVO 2.0 formula showed the lowest trimmed mean error with 0.62±0.58 D followed by BUII with 0.66±0.71 D. Within ± 0.50 D the EVO 2.0 formula achieved the highest accuracy with 54% whereas BUII and Hoffer Q achieved the highest accuracy within ±0.25 D with 28%.
conclusionThe EVO 2.0 formula represents a viable option for IOL calculation in patients undergoing scleral fixation with the Yamane technique. Although none of the formulas showed significant differences in performance, all consistently resulted in a myopic prediction error in the analyzed cohort. Therefore, when using the Yamane technique, targeting a slightly hyperopic refraction may help compensate for this myopic shift in similar patient populations.
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.