ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Network meta-analysis of intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy for the Yamane technique.
Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo systematically compare the accuracy of commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes undergoing the Yamane technique.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2014 and January 2026. Comparative clinical studies involving patients undergoing the Yamane technique were included if they reported mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ± 0.50 or ± 1.00 diopters (D). Network meta-analysis was performed using R software. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261343495).
results9 studies were included, involving 399 eyes and 7 calculation formulas. In pairwise analyses and the network meta-analysis, the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula showed higher proportions of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 and ± 1.00 D, although these differences were not statistically significant. Surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) showed the BUII formula ranked first (79.1%) for the percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 D. For the percentage within PE ± 1.00 D, Holladay 2 demonstrated the highest ranking (89.4%), followed by BUII (83.8%). The BUII formula had the lowest MedAE (0.43-0.73).
conclusionThe Yamane technique showed generally acceptable refractive outcomes across commonly used intraocular IOL formulas. Although no statistically significant differences were observed, BUII, Holladay 2, and SRK/T demonstrated relatively favorable performance across multiple refractive outcomes and may be preferred in clinical practice. These findings may help guide formula selection and refractive planning in Yamane fixation eyes. Further multicenter studies are warranted to confirm the optimal formulas for the Yamane technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616090What 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.