Purpose: This study aims to compare the accuracies of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas when targeting myopia versus emmetropia.
Methods: A total of 450 patients were included, with 225 patients targeting emmetropia and 225 patients aiming for approximately -2.0 diopters of myopia. This retrospective analysis utilized data from a single eye of each patient, with preoperative biometric measurements obtained using the IOL Master 700. The study considered established formulas such as Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T, as well as modern formulas including Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF, Hoffer QST, Kane, Olsen, and PEARL-DGS. Statistical analyses, including Friedman test and post hoc analysis, were employed to compare the accuracy of each IOL power calculation formula between the two groups. Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify variables influencing the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas.
Results: In targeting myopia, all IOL formulas tended to exhibit a greater refractive error compared to when targeting emmetropic eyes. Notably, the Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay 2 formulas were found to be highly influenced by this trend, while the modern formulas were less affected.
Conclusion: The accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas diminishes when targeting myopia in comparison to emmetropia. However, the modern formulas appear less susceptible to this trend. Consequently, when aiming for myopia, the use of the modern formulas is recommended for enhanced accuracy in IOL power calculation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11283103 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33339 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Background: Positive findings from testing therapeutics in AD animal models are often not translated to effective treatments due to the poor methodological rigor and inadequate reporting practices of therapeutic efficacy studies. The Alzheimer's Disease Preclinical Efficacy Database (AlzPED), developed by the NIA, is a searchable and publicly available knowledgebase that prioritizes and promotes the use of rigorous methodology to ameliorate this translation gap. Through a checklist of experimental design elements - the Rigor Report Card - AlzPED highlights reporting recommendations and standards while providing a practical tool to help plan rigorous therapeutic studies in animals.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDrug Development.
Alzheimers Dement
December 2024
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Background: Recruiting and retaining older adults for clinical trials is challenging, especially in low-resource settings. Such challenges led to a systematic exclusion of such participants from clinical trials, compromising the generalizability of the results obtained in high income countries.
Objective: Here we describe the strategies we used in the PROAME study for recruiting and retaining illiterate older adults from low socioeconomical levels in a non-pharmacological trial.
Drug Development.
Alzheimers Dement
December 2024
Department of Biomedical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Background: Randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to evaluate efficacy of new drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease. For example, the United States FDA approved the brain amyloid-targeting drug lecanemab following CLARITY AD, Biogen and Eisai's Phase 3 RCT. However, recruiting enough participants for a high-powered and demographically representative trial is difficult and expensive.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: In Alzheimer's Disease (AD) trials, clinical scales are used to assess treatment effect in patients. Minimizing statistical uncertainty of trial outcomes is an important consideration to increase statistical power. Machine learning models can leverage baseline data to create AI-generated digital twins - individualized predictions (or prognostic scores) of how each patient's clinical outcomes may change during a trial assuming they received placebo.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: A new era of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research is beginning now that multiple monoclonal antibodies (mABs) are on the market. Their use may not be widespread initially but will be more common in clinical sites likely to participate in clinical trials and will continue to grow. Many AD investigational treatments have been studied as add-on to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors; however, putative disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) like mABs are expected to alter the underlying rate of progression, potentially reducing our ability to detect effects of other DMTs on top of mABs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant 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!