ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparing Refractive Prediction Accuracy of IOL Master 700 and Sirius Utilizing the Barrett Universal II Formula.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the refractive-prediction error (the difference between the predicted post-operative spherical equivalent and the actual spherical equivalent) of IOLMaster 700 and Sirius when their biometric data are fed into the Barrett Universal II formula. Setting: Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Design: Prospective, observational, single-center, paired-eye study. Methods: 123 eyes of 93 cataract patients were enrolled. The participants ranged in age from 36 to 91 years, with a mean age of 65.38 ± 14.84 years. Axial length from IOLMaster 700 and corneal curvature, anterior-chamber depth and white-to-white from both devices were entered into the BarErett Universal II calculator to obtain predicted post-operative spherical equivalent (PRP). One week after uneventful phacoemulsification with monofocal intraocular lens implantation, manifest refraction provided the actual spherical equivalent (SE). Prediction error (ΔPRE = PRP - SE) and absolute error |ΔPRE| were primary outcomes. Results: Both devices produced positive ΔPRE, but the median was lower for IOLMaster 700 than for Sirius (0.41 D vs 0.73 D; p < 0.05). Median |ΔPRE| was also smaller for IOLMaster 700 (0.61 D vs 0.80 D; p < 0.05). Eyes within ±0.50 D of target refraction numbered 45.5% for IOLMaster 700 versus 26.0% for Sirius (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed no difference in error magnitude between long (AL > 25 mm) and normal axial-length eyes. Conclusion: Under the Barrett Universal II formula, IOLMaster 700 yields more accurate refractive predictions than Sirius, with smaller systematic drift and absolute error, irrespective of axial length. Thus, IOLMaster 700 with Barrett Universal II is the preferred biometry for superior refractive accuracy. This study offers surgeons practical guidance for improving post-operative visual outcomes and patient satisfaction.
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.