使用异方差统计方法和一种新的人工晶体常数优化方法对 9 种人工晶体功率计算公式进行评估。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
European Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1177/11206721241230347
Daniel Romero-Valero, Alicia Cárceles, Jorge L Alió, Carlos E Monera Lucas, Alejandro Moya Martínez, Jose Juan Martínez-Toldos
{"title":"使用异方差统计方法和一种新的人工晶体常数优化方法对 9 种人工晶体功率计算公式进行评估。","authors":"Daniel Romero-Valero, Alicia Cárceles, Jorge L Alió, Carlos E Monera Lucas, Alejandro Moya Martínez, Jose Juan Martínez-Toldos","doi":"10.1177/11206721241230347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12000,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical method and a new method of IOL constant optimization.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Romero-Valero, Alicia Cárceles, Jorge L Alió, Carlos E Monera Lucas, Alejandro Moya Martínez, Jose Juan Martínez-Toldos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11206721241230347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"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/10.1177/11206721241230347\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721241230347","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的: 使用异方差统计分析和一种新的人工晶体常数优化方法,评估 9 种人工晶体功率计算公式的预测准确性:设计:回顾性病例系列:方法:使用 LenStar LS900(Haag-Streit,瑞士科尼茨)进行术前生物测量。计算了植入人工晶体的预测 SE 屈光度:Barrett Universal II、EVO-2.0、Hill RBF-3.0、Hill-RBF 2.0、Kane、PEARL-DGS、SRK-T、Hoffer-Q 和 Holladay-1。人工晶体常数在分析前进行了优化。采用异方差统计方法比较预测误差(PE)的标准差(SD):结果:共纳入 278 名患者的 278 只眼睛。Kane 预测误差的标准差为 0.4214D,是该数据库中最低的。Kane和EVO 2.0的PE SD值明显低于SRK-T、Holladay 1和Hoffer-Q。PEARL 公式的 PE 标差明显低于 SRK-T 和 Hoffer-Q。希尔-RBF 3.0 的 PE 标差与希尔-RBF 2.0、凯恩、EVO 2.0、巴雷特通用 II 和 PEARL 没有明显差异。结论:Kane 预测误差的 SD 值最低,其次是 EVO 2.0 和 PERL-DGS。然而,新一代公式的预测误差自评量之间没有发现明显的统计学差异。有必要进行进一步研究,以评估这些公式在极端眼睛中的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical method and a new method of IOL constant optimization.

Purpose: To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization.

Design: Retrospective case series.

Methods: The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE).

Results: Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed.

Conclusions: the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信