ArticleClinical & experimental ophthalmology2026
Ray-Tracing-Based Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Combined Cataract Surgery and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.
Article in Clinical & experimental 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the predictive accuracy of ray tracing-based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas with the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula in eyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) undergoing combined cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (triple DMEK).
methodsThis is a retrospective, single-centre comparative case series. Preoperative biometry was obtained using Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam AXL) and a swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer (IOLMaster 700). IOL power calculations were performed using Barrett Universal II (BUII), Olsen ray-tracing and two OKULIX ray-tracing approaches (paraxial and 2.5-mm pupil). Prediction error (PE) was calculated and trueness, precision, and accuracy were evaluated using robust statistical methods (Eyetemis). A retrospective IOLup1D adjustment was additionally assessed.
resultsOne hundred forty-nine eyes of 149 patients were enrolled. BUII demonstrated the lowest trimmed mean absolute error (0.74 ± 0.65D) and median absolute error (0.60D), with 72% of eyes within ±1.00D of the target refraction. Olsen ray-tracing showed higher errors (mean absolute error 1.06 ± 1.02D), while both OKULIX approaches performed similarly (0.91-0.92D). Only OKULIX paraxial ray-tracing showed no significant systematic bias (p = 0.450), whereas all other formulas demonstrated a significant hyperopic shift (p < 0.001). After retrospective IOLup1D adjustment, BUII and Olsen achieved comparable accuracy, with Olsen demonstrating the highest trueness. Mean keratometry values measured with the IOLMaster were 0.20 ± 0.63D steeper compared to the Pentacam.
conclusionIn triple DMEK eyes, ray tracing-based IOL power calculation did not offer better accuracy compared to BUII. BUII demonstrated the highest accuracy and precision overall. After IOLup1D adjustment, BUII and Olsen achieved comparable accuracy, with Olsen showing the greatest trueness.
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.