ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in pediatric aphakia with the Artisan iris-claw lens.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the refractive accuracy of six intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric aphakia managed with anterior iris-claw (Artisan) IOL implantation.
methodsChildren aged 18 years or younger with ectopia lentis or microspherophakia who underwent lensectomy and anterior Artisan Aphakia IOL implantation between 2013 and 2024 at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, were reviewed retrospectively. Optical biometry was obtained using the IOLMaster (version 5.4). Predicted refraction was calculated using SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, T2, Barrett Universal II, and EVO 2.0 formulas, with lens constants iteratively optimised to zero mean prediction error. The primary analysis used first-operated eyes; cumulative data for all eyes are presented separately.
resultsTwenty-six first-operated eyes of 26 children were analysed. With manufacturer-supplied constants, SRK/T showed the least systematic bias (mean prediction error - 0.18 D), a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.75 D, and the highest observed proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 D (61.5%). After lens-constant optimisation, SRK/T had the lowest observed MAE (0.76 D) and median absolute error (0.37 D), and 61.5% of eyes were within ± 0.50 D. T2 and EVO 2.0 showed comparable overall performance. Absolute prediction error did not differ significantly across the six formulas (Friedman test, p = 0.71). Although the proportion within ± 0.50 D differed across formulas overall (Cochran's Q, p = 0.03), no pairwise comparison remained statistically significant after Bonferroni adjustment. Differences at the ± 1.00 D and ± 2.00 D thresholds were not significant. The cumulative 44-eye analysis showed a similar overall pattern.
conclusionIn this cohort, SRK/T showed the least systematic bias with the manufacturer-supplied constant and the lowest observed absolute prediction errors after optimisation, with T2 and EVO 2.0 performing comparably. No individual formula demonstrated statistically significant superiority after correction for multiple comparisons. These findings require prospective validation in independent cohorts before informing routine formula selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42789082What 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.