ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2026
Accuracy of Contemporary Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas Based on Swept-Source OCT Biometry in Eyes with Capsular Tension Ring.
Article in Turkish 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
Objectives: To compare the refractive prediction accuracy of contemporary intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas based on swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) biometry in cataract surgery with capsular tension ring (CTR) implantation, and to assess for systematic postoperative refractive tendencies. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 98 eyes of 92 patients who underwent phacoemulsification with in-the-bag IOL and CTR implantation. Preoperative biometry utilized swept-source OCT (ARGOS, Alcon). Refractive prediction accuracy was evaluated for the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay II formulas. Main outcomes included mean prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentages of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopter (D). Results: The mean age was 73.0±8.1 years, and the mean axial length was 23.03±1.04 mm. Barrett Universal II yielded the lowest MAE and MedAE (0.36±0.34 D and 0.24 D, respectively), followed by Holladay II (0.40±0.32 D and 0.30 D). Higher MAE was observed with SRK/T (0.45±0.37 D) and Haigis (0.54±0.45 D). MAE differed significantly among the formulas (p<0.001), with pairwise comparisons showing that Barrett Universal II and Holladay II performed similarly (p>0.05) and better than both Haigis and SRK/T (all p≤0.003). The highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D was observed with Barrett Universal II (52.04%), whereas Holladay II showed the highest percentage within ±0.50 D (69.39%), and the two formulas tied within the ±1.00 D range (both 92.86%). Prediction errors were positive for all formulas, indicating a mild hyperopic shift. Conclusion: In eyes undergoing cataract surgery with CTR implantation, Barrett Universal II and Holladay II showed more favorable refractive prediction accuracy than Haigis and SRK/T. A mild hyperopic shift was observed across all formulas. This finding may be clinically relevant when selecting the target refraction or IOL power in these eyes.
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.