ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Enhanced keratometry for IOL power calculation after myopic LASIK: a multi-device comparison.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo comparatively evaluate the predictive accuracy of Lenstar 900, IOL Master 700, OptiWave refractive analysis (ORA) and a modified Placido topography method in patients undergoing cataract surgery following myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
methodsA cohort of 62 post-myopic LASIK eyes from 37 patients was enrolled. Six methods were employed to estimate intraocular lens (IOL) power: Lenstar Barrett true K (BTK), Lenstar Shammas, IOL Master BTK, IOL Master BTK with total keratometry (TK), ORA and a modified Placido topography method.
resultsMean prediction errors and mean absolute errors were lowest to highest for the modified Placido topography method, IOL Master BTK with TK and IOL Master BTK, respectively. The IOL Master BTK, Lenstar BTK and ORA method did not significantly differ from each other. All methods outperformed Lenstar Shammas. At 2 months postoperatively, the modified Placido topography method had the highest percentages of eyes with manifest absolute prediction errors within 0.50 and 1.00 D (91.9%, 100%), followed by IOL Master BTK with TK (67.7%, 100%), IOL Master BTK (62.9%, 95.2%), ORA (54.8%, 95.2%), Lenstar BTK (53.2%, 95.2%) and Lenstar Shammas (38.7%, 67.7%).
conclusionThe BTK formula was highly accurate in predicting IOL power for patients undergoing cataract surgery after myopic LASIK. However, variations in keratometry values can influence outcomes. In this study, the modified Placido topography method was the most accurate, followed by IOL Master BTK with TK, IOL Master BTK, ORA, Lenstar BTK and Lenstar Shammas.
Identifiers
42823521What 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.