Intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 674 cataract eyes after radial keratotomy: Bayesian network meta-analysis.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY

European Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-09-17 DOI:10.1177/11206721251374370

Zhao-Xing Guo, Meng Li, Jing-Shang Zhang, Ying-Yan Mao, Zhi-Yong Tian, Xin Zheng, Xiu-Hua Wan

{"title":"Intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 674 cataract eyes after radial keratotomy: Bayesian network meta-analysis.","authors":"Zhao-Xing Guo, Meng Li, Jing-Shang Zhang, Ying-Yan Mao, Zhi-Yong Tian, Xin Zheng, Xiu-Hua Wan","doi":"10.1177/11206721251374370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo analyze and compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with cataract after radial keratotomy.MethodsWeb of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PubMed were searched for clinical studies published from the establishment of the database to 10th May 2024. Measurements were taken as percentage of eyes of prediction errors within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D. A network meta-analysis was utilized to compare the different formulas as a way to identify the most advantageous ones.ResultsResults from 11 studies of 674 eyes after radial keratotomy that used 24 formulas were included. A network meta-analysis indicated that for error within the range of ± 0.5 D, Barrett true-K History and Barrett true-K Partial History were better than Double-K Holladay 1. Intraoperative Aberrometry, Double-K SRK/T, Haigis and Barrett true-K No History performed as well or better than Double-K Holladay 1. Shammas No History and Holladay 1 had poor performance. For error within the range of ±1.0 D, Shammas No History and Barrett Universal II had poor performance. No statistically significant difference was observed between the other formulas.ConclusionsFor cataract patients after radial keratotomy, Barrett true-K History and Barrett true-K Partial History were recommended if the prior medical history were available. Otherwise, no single formula is more advantageous without reference to prior medical history.","PeriodicalId":12000,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"11206721251374370"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721251374370","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo analyze and compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with cataract after radial keratotomy.MethodsWeb of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PubMed were searched for clinical studies published from the establishment of the database to 10th May 2024. Measurements were taken as percentage of eyes of prediction errors within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D. A network meta-analysis was utilized to compare the different formulas as a way to identify the most advantageous ones.ResultsResults from 11 studies of 674 eyes after radial keratotomy that used 24 formulas were included. A network meta-analysis indicated that for error within the range of ± 0.5 D, Barrett true-K History and Barrett true-K Partial History were better than Double-K Holladay 1. Intraoperative Aberrometry, Double-K SRK/T, Haigis and Barrett true-K No History performed as well or better than Double-K Holladay 1. Shammas No History and Holladay 1 had poor performance. For error within the range of ±1.0 D, Shammas No History and Barrett Universal II had poor performance. No statistically significant difference was observed between the other formulas.ConclusionsFor cataract patients after radial keratotomy, Barrett true-K History and Barrett true-K Partial History were recommended if the prior medical history were available. Otherwise, no single formula is more advantageous without reference to prior medical history.

查看原文本刊更多论文

674例桡骨角膜切开术后白内障眼的人工晶状体度数计算公式：贝叶斯网络meta分析。

目的分析比较桡骨角膜切开术后白内障不同人工晶状体度数计算公式的准确性。方法检索web of Science、Cochrane Library、EMBASE和PubMed数据库自建库至2024年5月10日发表的临床研究。测量结果为预测误差在±0.5 D和±1.0 D范围内的眼的百分比。采用网络荟萃分析比较不同的公式，以确定最有利的公式。结果纳入11项研究，674只眼桡骨角膜切开术后使用24种配方。网络荟萃分析表明，在±0.5 D范围内，Barrett真k史和Barrett真k部分史优于Double-K Holladay 1。术中像差测量、Double-K SRK/T、Haigis和Barrett true-K No History均优于Double-K Holladay 1。Shammas No History和Holladay 1表现不佳。误差在±1.0 D范围内，Shammas No History和Barrett Universal II表现不佳。其他公式之间无统计学差异。结论对于桡骨角膜切开术后的白内障患者，如有既往病史，建议进行Barrett真k史和Barrett真k部分史检查。否则，没有一个单一的配方是更有利的，没有参考先前的病史。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

372

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Ophthalmology was founded in 1991 and is issued in print bi-monthly. It publishes only peer-reviewed original research reporting clinical observations and laboratory investigations with clinical relevance focusing on new diagnostic and surgical techniques, instrument and therapy updates, results of clinical trials and research findings.