Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2022
Overview
This review article attempts to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes. A thorough literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for articles published over the past 21 years, up to July 2021. The mean absolute error was compared by using weighted mean difference, whereas odds ratio was used for comparing the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.0 D of target refraction. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was analyzed by using Chi-square test and I2 test. Fifteen studies including 2,395 eyes and 11 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Full Monte method, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, Super formula, SRK/T, and T2) were included. Although the mean absolute error (MAE) of Barrett Universal II was found to be the lowest, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the comparisons. The median absolute error (MedAE) of Barrett Universal II was the lowest (0.260). Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction, respectively. Yet their comparison with the rest of the formulae did not yield statistically significant results. Thus, to conclude, in the present meta-analysis, although lowest MAE and MedAE were found for Barrett Universal II and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction was found for Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF, respectively, none of the formulae was found to be statistically superior over the other in eyes with short axial length.
