ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2026
Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in eyes with pterygium: validation of a regression-based keratometric prediction model.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
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
Background: This study aimed to validate a regression-based keratometric prediction model in eyes with pterygium using actual postoperative refractive outcomes after cataract surgery. Methods: A retrospective paired analysis was performed in 20 unilateral eyes that underwent staged cataract surgery following pterygium excision. Predicted K values were calculated using a previously reported regression model based on CASIA2 anterior segment parameters. Intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated using the Barrett Universal II formula. Mean K, spherical equivalent, refractive error, and absolute refractive error were compared among four keratometric methods (postoperative K, predicted K, preoperative K, and fellow-eye K) using the Friedman test followed by Bonferroni-adjusted Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Sensitivity analyses were conducted after exclusion of toric IOL cases. Exploratory receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to assess the influence of preoperative corneal parameters. Results: Overall differences among the four methods were significant for mean K (p < 0.0001), spherical equivalent (p = 0.0003), refractive error (p = 0.001), and absolute refractive error (p = 0.014). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between postoperative K and predicted K in any parameter. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistent findings. Exploratory analyses suggested that preoperative corneal characteristics may influence refractive predictability. Conclusion: In this paired analysis of 20 unilateral eyes, regression-based K estimation demonstrated refractive performance comparable to postoperative keratometry. These findings support the potential clinical utility of prediction-based keratometry as a practical alternative when postoperative K values are unavailable, although confirmation in larger prospective studies is required.
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.