We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery and radial keratotomy: Bayesian network meta-analysis.
American Journal of Ophthalmology 2023 October 20
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of formulas for calculating intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery or radial keratotomy.
DESIGN: Bayesian network meta-analysis.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for retrospective and prospective clinical studies published from Jan 1, 2012 to Aug 24, 2022. The outcome measurement was the percentage of eyes with a predicted error within the target refractive range (± 0.50 diopter [D] or ± 1.00 D).
RESULTS: Our meta-analysis includes 24 studies of 1172 eyes after myopic refractive surgery that use 12 formulas for intraocular lens power calculation. (1)A network meta-analysis showed that Barrett true-K no history, the OCT formula, and the Masket formula had a significantly higher percent of eyes within ± 0.50 D of the goal than the Haigis-L formula, while the Wang-Koch-Maloney formula showed the poor predictability. Using an error criterion of within ± 1.00 D, the same three formulas performed slightly better than the Haigis-L formula. Based on performance using both prediction error criteria, the Barrett true-K no history formula, OCT formula, and Masket formula showed the highest probability of ranking as the top three among the 12 methods. (2)A direct meta-analysis with a subset of four studies and five formulas indicated that formulas did not differ in percent success for either the ± 0.5 D or ± 1.0 D error range in eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.
CONCLUSIONS: The OCT, Masket, and Barrett true-K no history formulas are more accurate for eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, whereas no significant difference was found among the formulas for eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.
DESIGN: Bayesian network meta-analysis.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for retrospective and prospective clinical studies published from Jan 1, 2012 to Aug 24, 2022. The outcome measurement was the percentage of eyes with a predicted error within the target refractive range (± 0.50 diopter [D] or ± 1.00 D).
RESULTS: Our meta-analysis includes 24 studies of 1172 eyes after myopic refractive surgery that use 12 formulas for intraocular lens power calculation. (1)A network meta-analysis showed that Barrett true-K no history, the OCT formula, and the Masket formula had a significantly higher percent of eyes within ± 0.50 D of the goal than the Haigis-L formula, while the Wang-Koch-Maloney formula showed the poor predictability. Using an error criterion of within ± 1.00 D, the same three formulas performed slightly better than the Haigis-L formula. Based on performance using both prediction error criteria, the Barrett true-K no history formula, OCT formula, and Masket formula showed the highest probability of ranking as the top three among the 12 methods. (2)A direct meta-analysis with a subset of four studies and five formulas indicated that formulas did not differ in percent success for either the ± 0.5 D or ± 1.0 D error range in eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.
CONCLUSIONS: The OCT, Masket, and Barrett true-K no history formulas are more accurate for eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, whereas no significant difference was found among the formulas for eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app