Accuracy of the Refractive Prediction Determined by Multiple Currently Available Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Small Eyes

Meta‐analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes

“…. Subgroup analysis further confirmed that significant difference existed between Carifi et al . and the other two trials ( P = 0.009, data not shown).…”

“…f, X 2 = 8.29, df =2, P = 0.02, I 2 = 76%). The sensitivity analysis showed that I 2 decreased to 35% ( P = 0.21, data not shown) without significantly altering the overall result by omitting Carifi et al …”

“…Furthermore, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted. Both of the analysis for the comparison between Haigis and SRK II indicated that the heterogeneity might result from the difference between Carifi et al . and the other two studies.…”

“…In total, there are 1161 eyes are enrolled from the 10 included studies (characteristics shown in Table ) . The sample size ranged from 15–608 eyes.…”

Protocols for Studies of Intraocular Lens Formula Accuracy

“…The references for some examples of studies compromised by (1) ME not zeroed out, [10][11][12][13][14][15] (2) comparison of target refraction results, 11 (3) comparing MAEs, 10 (4) using bilateral eyes, [11][12][13][14] and (5) using multiple IOLs 11-14 are listed.…”