Observational studyJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Comparison of ocular biometry and refractive outcome between a new and classic optical biometer.
Observational study in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the ocular biometry and refractive outcome between 2 optical biometers.
settingZhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangzhou, China.
designProspective observational study.
methods953 patients with cataract underwent preoperative biometry including ZW-30 sum-of-segments (SOS) method (ZW SM ), ZW-30 composite method (ZW CM ), and IOLMaster 700. Agreement of axial length (AL), with or without Cooke-modified AL (CMAL) adjustment, was analyzed using Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Subgroup analysis was used based on ALs (short eyes: AL <22 mm; normal eyes: 22 mm ≤ AL <26 mm; long eyes: AL ≥26 mm). Refractive prediction accuracy was evaluated using the Emmetropia verifying optical (EVO) 2.0 formula and its SOS-optimized version (EVO 2.0 SOS ).
resultsIn short and normal eyes, narrow 95% LoAs (<0.2 mm) were identified among 3 ALs. However, AL obtained by ZW SM was lower compared with this obtained by ZW CM and IOLMaster 700 (95% LoA -0.39 to 0.01 mm; -0.38 to 0.04 mm) in long eyes. CMAL adjustment enhanced the agreement of AL between ZW SM and ZW CM (95% LoA -0.01 mm to 0.02 mm), ZW SM and IOLMaster 700 (95% LoA -0.10 mm to 0.07 mm) in long eyes. Myopic prediction errors (PE) have been identified in the use of ocular biometric parameters obtained from ZW SM (mean PE [ME]: EVO 2.0, -0.19 diopters [D]; EVO 2.0 SOS , -0.18 D). After adjusting ME to zero, no difference was observed in PE calculated using any combination of formulas based on biometric measurements from 3 devices.
conclusionsThis new segmented biometer demonstrated excellent agreement with IOLMaster 700 in short and normal eyes. However, ALs obtained by IOLMaster 700 are not interchangeable with the SOS method and require CMAL adjustment in long eyes. The application of the SOS method's ocular biometric parameters in refractive prediction led to myopic errors, which suggests constant optimization.
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.