ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Evaluation of Sum of Segments Biometry in Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Long Eyes.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of ocular biometry and refractive outcome between a new and classic optical biometer.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Observational
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
Purpose: To evaluate the sum of segments (SOS) biometry in modern intraocular lens power (IOL) calculation formulas for long eyes. Methods: This was a retrospective case series that included 177 eyes from 177 patients with axial length (AL) ≥ 24.5 mm. Preoperative AL measurements were performed using the ARGOS (Alcon, Inc). This study used 2 formulas: the Barrett Universal II (BUII) and the Barrett true axial length (BTAL). Other formulas were included: Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, and PEARL DGS. Results: The Barrett Universal II formula exhibited the most significant myopic mean prediction error at -0.15 ± 0.27 D, with the Cooke K6, PEARL-DGS, and EVO 2.0 formulas following. In terms of hyperopic mean prediction error, the PEARL-DGSsos formula recorded the highest value at 0.19 ± 0.32 D, succeeded by the EVO 2.0sos, Cooke K6sos, and BTAL formulas. The EVO 2.0, PEARL-DGS, Barrett Universal II, and Cooke K6 formulas demonstrated the lowest mean and median absolute errors, with BTAL, EVO 2.0sos, Cooke K6sos, and PEARL-DGSsos formulas trailing behind. The median absolute errors (MedAE) for EVO 2.0, PEARL-DGS, and Barrett Universal II were recorded at 0.13, 0.15, and 0.16 D, respectively. Conclusion: BUII formula showed myopic shift with SOS biometry which increases with longer eyes. Using SOS option in Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, and PEARL-DGS formulas leads to a hyperopic shift in the mean prediction error which is undesirable. Using ALsos in those formulas without choosing the option of SOS yields a mean prediction error towards the myopic side which might be more desirable. All included formulas performed well with ALsos with most of the cases within + 1 D of intended refraction.
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.