ArticleHeliyon2024
IOL power calculation in long eyes: Selection of the best axial length adjustement factor using the most common formulas.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Kane, Hill-RBF, and PEARL-DGS versus traditional IOL formulas in highly myopic eyes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- The Therapeutic Use of Natural Products in Myopia Prevention: Recent Applications.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2026Review
- Accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens formulas in IOL power calculation for cataract extraction combined with vitrectomy.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of new-generation and traditional intraocular lens power calculation formulas in pediatric primary implantation.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Does DeepSeek Provide Clinically Acceptable Intraocular Lens (IOL) Power Predictions in Cataract Surgery? A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Influence of axial length and myopia severity on the achieved optical zone in KLEx surgery: a pilot study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Comment on Al Barri et al. Evaluation of Refractive Predictive Accuracy in Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Comparative Study of Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Optical Low-Coherence Interferometry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence driven intraocular lens power calculation in extreme axial myopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comment on: accuracy of 12 IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Factors affecting the refractive error after cataract surgery.International ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Corrected Axial Length and Choroidal Thickness: A Correlation Analysis for Scientific Purposes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Editorial: More than a "formulas problem": IOL power calculation and biometry in the era of "refractive cataract".Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Sum of Segments Biometry in Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Long Eyes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Biometric Factors in the VRF-G Formula for IOL Power Calculation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Global trends and hotspots in artificial intelligence for high myopia: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Lens Factor Choice in IOL Power Calculation after Laser Refractive Surgery: The Right Constant for Advanced Lens Measurement Approach (ALMA).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Comparing IOL power calculation formulas in long eyes (AL≥26.00 mm) to find the best axial length (AL) adjustment/IOL power calculation formula combination. Design: Retrospective, comparative, case-series. Participants: Patients with long eyes that underwent cataract surgery. Methods: five-hundred-fifty-four eyes of 554 patients were examined before and after standard phacoemulsification without complications. Eyes were subdivided in 3 groups according to AL: 26.00≤AL<28.00 mm, 28.00≤AL<30.00 mm, AL≥30.00 mm. Eight formulas that do not require anterior chamber depth (ACD) were evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Ladas Super Formula (LSF), Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRKT, T2 and T2.2. The lens constant of ULIB database and IOLCon database were used. Each formula was analyzed by using uncorrected AL (ALu) and following AL adjustments: Wang-Koch 1 (wk1), wk2, wk polinomial (wk-pol), estimated Cooke modified axial length (CMALe) and ALc correcting factor. Main outcome measures: Mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ± 1.00 diopters (D) of prediction error. Results: T2-ALu gave best outcome when 26.00 mm ≤ AL<28.00 mm. LSF-ALu, BUII-ALu, EVO 2.0-ALu, Holladay 1-wk-pol and T2.2-CMALe represented valid alternatives. EVO 2.0-ALc gave best outcomes when 28.00 mm ≤ AL<30.00 mm. Other thick-lens or hybrid artificial-intelligence-vergence based formulas (BUII-ALu, LSF-CMALe) and Holladay 1-wk2 demonstrated greater reliability compared to thin lens-based formulas. EVO 2.0-CMALe gave best outcomes when AL≥30.00 mm. Holladay 1-wk-pol e T2.2-wk1 represented valid alternatives (all p < 0.050). LSF could fail in 50 % of cases without ACD when AL≥30.00 mm. Conclusions: Choosing the best AL adjustment/IOL power calculation formula combination for each AL subrange, can improve refractive outcomes in patients with long eyes that undergo cataract surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.