ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Six Toric IOL Power Calculation Formulas, Including Four Available on the ESCRS Online Calculator.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the prediction accuracy of toric IOL power calculation formulas available on the ESCRS online calculator, the Abulafia-Koch combined with Hill-RBF and Castrop formulae, and assess their effectiveness in predicting actual postoperative refractive outcomes. Patients and Methods: The preoperative and 4-5 week postoperative records of 131 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation of enVista toric (MX60T) IOL were reviewed retrospectively. The IOL power calculation formulas available on the ESCRS online calculator (Kane, EVO, Hoffer QST, and Barrett), Abulafia-Koch combined with Hill-RBF and Castrop formulae, were used to obtain predicted postoperative refraction for the implanted IOL. Spherical equivalent and residual astigmatism prediction errors (SEQ-PE and RA-PE) were compared statistically using Eyetemis. Results were expressed as trueness, accuracy, and precision. Results: Mean corneal astigmatism decreased from 2.47±0.95 D preoperatively to 0.34±0.28 D postoperatively; 88.6% of eyes achieved cylinder ≤0.50 D. For SEQ-PE, trueness was comparable for Abulafia-Koch combined with Hill-RBF, Castrop, EVO, and Barrett, with trimmed means ranging between -0.02 to 0.02 D. Precision was similar for EVO, Kane, and Barrett (0.16-0.18 D) and lower for Abulafia-Koch combined with Hill-RBF and Hoffer QST formulas. Accuracy was comparable among Barrett, Castrop, EVO, and Kane, with Barrett, EVO, and Kane formulas achieving the highest proportion of eyes (>93%) within ±0.50 D of prediction error. For RA-PE, the trueness and precision of Abulafia-Koch combined with Hill-RBF, Hoffer QST, EVO, Kane, and Barrett formulas were high and comparable. Trueness ranged from 0.08 to 0.14 D and precision from 0.34 D to 0.37 D. All formulas except Castrop showed good astigmatic prediction accuracy, with more than two-thirds of eyes achieving absolute RA-PE within 0.50 D. Conclusion: Among the evaluated formulas, the EVO, Barrett, and Kane formulas showed high refractive and astigmatic predictability, supporting their reliability for toric IOL power calculation.
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.