Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes.
Wang, Qiwei; Jiang, Wu; Lin, Tiao; Wu, Xiaohang; Lin, Haotian; Chen, Weirong.
Afiliación
  • Wang Q; State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
  • Jiang W; Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
  • Lin T; The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
  • Wu X; State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
  • Lin H; State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
  • Chen W; State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Clin Exp Ophthalmol ; 46(4): 356-363, 2018 05.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28887901
ABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE Intraocular lens (IOL) power selection is a critical factor affecting visual outcome after IOL implantation in short eyes. Many formulas have been developed to achieve a precise prediction of the IOL power. However, controversy regarding the accuracy remains.

BACKGROUND:

To investigate the accuracy of different IOL power calculation formulas in short eyes.

DESIGN:

Meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS:

Patients with the axial length of eyes less than 22 mm from previously reported studies.

METHODS:

A comprehensive search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted by October 2016. We assessed the methodological quality using a modified QUADAS-2 tool and performed analysis on weighted mean differences of mean absolute errors (MAE) among different formulas. MAIN OUTCOMES

MEASURES:

The between-group difference of MAE was evaluated with weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS:

Ten observational studies, involving 1161 eyes, were enrolled to compare six formulas Haigis, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and SRK II. Among them, the Holladay 2 introduced the smallest overall MAE (0.496D) without statistical significance. The difference of MAE is statistically significant between Haigis and Hoffer Q (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.003), Haigis and SRK/T (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.009), Haigis and SRK II (mean difference = -0.41D, P = 0.01). For publication bias and small-study effect, neither funnel plot nor egger's test detected statistical finding. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE The overall evidence from the studies confirmed the superiority of Haigis over Hoffer Q, SRK/T and SRK II in prediction IOL power in short eyes.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Refracción Ocular / Agudeza Visual / Biometría / Óptica y Fotónica / Lentes Intraoculares Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Asunto de la revista: OFTALMOLOGIA Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Refracción Ocular / Agudeza Visual / Biometría / Óptica y Fotónica / Lentes Intraoculares Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Asunto de la revista: OFTALMOLOGIA Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article