ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens formulas in IOL power calculation for cataract extraction combined with vitrectomy.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in patients undergoing combined cataract extraction and vitrectomy (phacovitrectomy).
methodsWe retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients who underwent phacovitrectomy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University between January 2015 and December 2022. IOL power was assessed with Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas. Outcomes included mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentages within ± 0.25 to ± 1.00 D. Subgroup analyses were performed by axial length (AL), diagnosis, and tamponade agent.
resultsA total of 138 eyes were analyzed: 79 epiretinal membrane (ERM), 38 macular hole (MH), and 21 primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Between-formula differences were significant overall (P < 0.01). BUII and EVO achieved significantly lower MedAEs (0.36 D and 0.32 D) than Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 (0.51 D and 0.57 D). BUII, EVO, and Kane achieved higher percentages of eyes within target error thresholds than SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 (all P < 0.01). BUII and Haigis were relatively stable across AL subgroups, whereas SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 exhibited larger MedAE values in eyes with AL ≥ 30 mm. All formulas performed worse in RRD, and MedAEs were also larger in silicone-oil eyes.
conclusionIn ERM or MH phacovitrectomy, new-generation formulas, particularly BUII and EVO, provide more accurate refractive prediction than traditional formulas. In RRD and silicone-oil cases, refractive uncertainty remains substantial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42401746What 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.