Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Feb;43(2):619-633.
doi: 10.1007/s10792-022-02466-4. Epub 2022 Sep 5.

Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis

Hongyu Li #  1   2 , Zi Ye #  2 , Yu Luo  1   2 , Zhaohui Li  3   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis

Hongyu Li et al. Int Ophthalmol. 2023 Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes.

Methods: Four databases, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane library, were searched to select relevant studies published between Apr 11, 2011, and Apr 11, 2021. Axial myopic eyes were defined as an axial length more than 24.5 mm. There are 13 formulae to participate in the final comparison (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis for traditional formulae, Barrett Universal II, Olsen, T2, VRF, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, LSF for the new-generation formulae). The primary outcomes were the percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D.

Results: A total of 2273 eyes in 15 studies were enrolled in the final meta-analysis. Overall, the new-generation formulae showed a relatively more accurate outcome in comparison with traditional formulae. The percentage of eyes with a predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D (± 1.0D) of Kane, EVO and LSF was higher than 80% (95%), which was only significantly different from Hoffer Q (all P < 0.05). Moreover, another two new-generation formulae, Barrett Universal II and Olsen, had higher percentages than SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I and Haigis for eyes with predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D (all P < 0.05). In ± 0.5D group, Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.02), and Holladay I was better than EVO (P = 0.03) and LSF (P = 0.009), and Hoffer Q had a lower percentage than EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF and LSF (P = 0.007, 0.004, 0.002, 0.03, respectively). Barrett Universal II was better than T2 (P = 0.02), and Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.009). No significant difference was found in other pairwise comparison.

Conclusion: The new-generation formula is more accurate in intraocular lens power calculation for axial myopic eyes in comparison with the third- or fourth-generation formula.

Keywords: Axial myopic; Cataract; IOL power calculation; Meta-analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of articles selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Quality assessment of the eligible studies according to the modified QUADAS-2
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The overall percentage of refractive prediction error within ± 0.5 D and ± 1.0 D of the included formulae (HQ: Hoffer Q; H1: Holladay I; H2: Holladay II; BUII: Barrett Universal II; D: diopter)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plots of the percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error in ± 0.5 D when comparing Barrett Universal II with SRK/T (A), Hoffer Q (B), Holladay I (C), Holladay II (D), Haigis (E), Olsen (F), T2 (G), EVO (H), Kane (I), H-RBF (J), LSF (K)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plots of the percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error in ± 0.5 D when comparing Barrett Universal II with SRK/T (A), Hoffer Q (B), Holladay I (C), Holladay II (D), Haigis (E), Olsen (F), T2 (G), EVO (H), Kane (I), H-RBF (J), LSF (K)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plots of the percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error in ± 1.0 D when comparing Barrett Universal II with SRK/T (A), Hoffer Q (B), Holladay I (C), Holladay II (D), Haigis (E), Olsen (F), T2 (G), EVO (H), Kane (I), H-RBF (J), LSF (K)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plots of the percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error in ± 1.0 D when comparing Barrett Universal II with SRK/T (A), Hoffer Q (B), Holladay I (C), Holladay II (D), Haigis (E), Olsen (F), T2 (G), EVO (H), Kane (I), H-RBF (J), LSF (K)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Chong EW, Mehta JS. High myopia and cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27(1):45–50. doi: 10.1097/icu.0000000000000217. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Olsen T, Thim K, Corydon L. Accuracy of the newer generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long and short eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1991;17(2):187–193. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80249-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C. Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: comparison of 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(10):1490–1500. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.07.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ji J, Liu Y, Zhang J, Wu X, Shao W, Ma B, Luo M. Comparison of six methods for the intraocular lens power calculation in high myopic eyes. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(1):96–102. doi: 10.1177/1120672119889016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang Y, Liang XY, Liu S, Lee JW, Bhaskar S, Lam DS. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for highly myopic eyes. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:1917268. doi: 10.1155/2016/1917268. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types