ReviewDie Ophthalmologie2026
[Calculating IOL power - principles, development and current challenges].
Review in Die Ophthalmologie, 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
backgroundThe formulae for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power have undergone considerable development. In recent years in particular, novel approaches based on artificial intelligence (AI) have been incorporated into the calculation models.
objectiveThe aim is to discuss both classical and new principles of IOL calculation, to present the current classification, to explain new approaches and to compare the performance of the formulae based on current reviews and meta-analyses. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis article is a narrative review without any claim to completeness. The literature selection was based on relevant publications identified through medical databases and specialist journals. Initial publications on the formulae and articles on classification systems were identified and analyzed, followed by an evaluation of current reviews and meta-analyses to compare the performance capabilities.
resultsThe spectrum of IOL formulae ranges from historical refraction-based and regression-based approaches, classical vergence and ray tracing to modern AI-based methods. Many of the contemporary formulae used integrate multiple methodologies. In recent years there has been a clear trend towards reducing prediction errors with the advent of newer formulae, particularly in short eyes.
conclusionModern IOL formulae are preferable to traditional ones and outdated guidelines regarding formula selection should be updated. Many modern formulae are universally applicable and yield similarly good results. Further developments will reduce the number of outliers but will likely never eliminate them entirely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42334608What 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.