A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas. | LitMetric

Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas.

J Cataract Refract Surg

From the Cullen Eye Institute (Gökce, Zeiter, Weikert, Koch, Wang), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and East Valley Ophthalmology (Hill), Mesa, Arizona, USA. Electronic address:

Published: July 2017

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of 7 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcome in eyes with axial lengths (AL) equal to or less than 22.0 mm and to evaluate factors contributing to prediction errors.

Setting: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA.

Design: Retrospective case series.

Methods: Eighty-six eyes of 67 patients were included. Seven IOL calculation formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and Olsen. The refractive prediction error was calculated as the difference between the postoperative refraction and the refraction predicted by each formula. The mean refractive prediction error and median absolute error were also calculated.

Results: The Hoffer Q and Holladay 2 formulas produced myopic refractive prediction errors of -0.22 diopter (D) and -0.23 D, respectively, and the Olsen formula produced a hyperopic refractive prediction error of +0.27 D (all P < .05). Without adjustment of the mean refractive prediction errors to zero, the only difference between formulas was that Hill-RBF had a statistically significantly smaller median absolute error than Hoffer Q (P < .05). With adjustment of the mean refractive prediction errors to zero, there were no statistically significant differences in the median absolute errors between the 7 formulas (P = .076).

Conclusions: The Hoffer Q and Holladay 2 formulas produced slightly myopic refractive prediction errors, and the Olsen formula produced hyperopic refractive prediction errors. When the mean numerical refractive prediction error was adjusted to zero, no statistically significant differences in the median absolute error were found between the 7 formulas.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.07.004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

refractive prediction
16
prediction error
12
intraocular lens
8
iol calculation
8
calculation formulas
8
hoffer holladay
8
refractive
5
prediction
5
lens power
4
power calculations
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!