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
Comparative Study
. 2025 Jul 18;15(1):26095.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-11332-z.

Accuracy comparison of six intraocular lens formulas using total and standard keratometry measurements with the iolmaster 700

Shuang Ni #  1   2 , Jingwen Wang #  3 , Danni Lyu  1   2 , Zhe Xu  1   2 , Jing-Wei Xu  1   2 , Sha Zhu  1   2 , Yixuan Feng  1   2 , Ce Shi  1   2 , Wen Xu  4   5
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Accuracy comparison of six intraocular lens formulas using total and standard keratometry measurements with the iolmaster 700

Shuang Ni et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of six intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using total keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) measurements from the IOLMaster 700 in various ocular subgroups. A total of 212 eyes were analyzed. The mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD) of prediction error, and the median absolute error (MedAE) were calculated for each formula. and the prediction accuracy was compared across different subgroups categorized by axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and other ocular parameters. Results showed that the Barrett Universal II (BU II) formula consistently had the lowest MAEs and MedAEs in the overall sample and most subgroups. The BU II formula performed particularly well in subgroups with thin LT when using TK mode and in medium LT subgroups using K mode. Comparison between TK and K modes showed no consistent superiority, with each mode outperforming the other in specific subgroups. The accuracy of the BU II formula was not influenced by ocular parameters, suggesting its robustness across different patient groups. In conclusion, the BU II formula demonstrated superior accuracy compared to other formulas, especially in specific subgroups, and its performance remained consistent regardless of ocular measurement variations.

Keywords: IOL formula; IOLMaster 700; Intraocular lens (IOL); Standard keratometry (K); Total keratometry (TK).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine (ID 2023-0013). All procedures adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, the need to obtain the informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of the mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD) of prediction error, and median absolute error (MedAE) across six intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, using either total keratometry (TK) or standard keratometry (K) measurements obtained from the IOLMaster 700.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Stacked histogram showing the percentage of eyes with prediction errors (PE) within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D for each intraocular lens power calculation formula, using total keratometry (TK) or standard keratometry (K) as measured by the IOLMaster 700.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rocha-de-Lossada, C. et al. Intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy: Comparison of 12 formulas for a trifocal hydrophilic intraocular lens. Eur. J. Ophthalmol.31, 2981–2988. 10.1177/1120672120980690 (2021). - PubMed
    1. Xu, J., Chen, X., Wang, H. & Yao, K. Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Adv. Ophthalmol. Pract. Res.2, 100027. 10.1016/j.aopr.2022.100027 (2022). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim, S. Y., Lee, S. H., Kim, N. R., Chin, H. S. & Jung, J. W. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer. PloS One. 15, e0227638. 10.1371/journal.pone.0227638 (2020). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cooke, D. L. & Cooke, T. L. Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas. J. Cataract Refract. Surg.42, 1157–1164. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.06.029 (2016). - PubMed
    1. LaHood, B. R. & Goggin, M. Measurement of posterior corneal astigmatism by the iolmaster 700. J. Refract. Surg.34, 331–336. 10.3928/1081597X-20180214-02 (2018). - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources