ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes.
Article 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the refractive prediction accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in cataract patients with short axial length (AL), and to further evaluate the predictive performance of these formulas across different AL and keratometry (Km) subgroups.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included 271 eyes from 271 patients with AL ≤ 22.0 mm who underwent cataract surgery at four Aier Eye Hospitals between June 2023 and March 2026. After exclusion of toric IOLs, 11 formulas were evaluated. Prediction errors were zero-centered for each formula using the overall cohort.
resultsSignificant differences in optimized absolute prediction error were observed among the formulas (P < 0.001). EVO and Holladay 1 showed the lowest numerical MAEs (both 0.47 D), whereas Kane showed the lowest MedAE (0.36 D). In eyes with AL ≤ 21.0 mm, Haigis showed the lowest MAE and MedAE, while K6 achieved the highest proportion within ± 0.50 D. In the 21.0 < AL ≤ 21.5 mm subgroup, Kane showed the lowest MedAE, whereas EVO and PEARL-DGS achieved the highest proportions within ± 0.50 D. EVO showed the most favorable numerical performance in the 21.5 < AL ≤ 22.0 mm subgroup.
conclusionsNew-generation formulas, particularly EVO and K6, demonstrated relatively favorable overall performance in Chinese cataract patients with short axial length. In eyes with AL ≤ 21.0 mm, Haigis remained highly competitive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42720746What 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.