ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Evaluation of Intraocular Lens (IOL) Formulae Utilizing Posterior Corneal Power in Post-Laser Vision Correction (LVC) Eyes.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae incorporating posterior corneal power vs traditional keratometry in post-laser vision correction (LVC) eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Patients and Methods: This multicenter study (7 sites) combined retrospective chart review and prospective enrollment of adult cataract surgery patients with prior myopic or hyperopic LVC (one study eye per patient). Preoperative biometry was obtained by swept-source optical coherence tomography, and refractive prediction accuracy was compared across six IOL formulae (Barrett True K-AK, Barrett True K-TK, EVO 2.0-AK, EVO 2.0-TK, Haigis-TK, and Shammas-Cooke) in terms of trueness (mean refractive prediction error [RPE]), precision (RPE dispersion), and accuracy (absolute error metrics and proportion of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D). Results: A total of 154 eyes were included. The proportion of eyes within ±0.5 D of predicted refraction was highest with EVO 2.0-TK in both post-myopic (77%) and post-hyperopic (88%) LVC eyes, with Barrett True K-TK next highest (75% and 78%, respectively); in post-myopic eyes, EVO 2.0-TK was also the only formula whose mean RPE did not differ significantly from zero. Conclusions: EVO 2.0-TK demonstrated the highest overall accuracy among the formulae evaluated in both post-myopic and post-hyperopic LVC eyes, while Barrett True K-TK also performed well, with both formulae achieving ≥75% of eyes within ±0.50 D in both LVC subgroups.
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.