医学
平均绝对误差
均方预测误差
眼科
标准差
平均差
屈光度
人工晶状体度数计算
协议限制
白内障手术
绝对偏差
数学
统计
核医学
视力
均方误差
置信区间
内科学
作者
Giacomo Savini,Marco Di Maita,Kenneth J. Hoffer,Kristian Næser,Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello,Aldo Vagge,Luca Di Cello,Carlo Enrico Traverso
标识
DOI:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316193
摘要
Background/aims To compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. Methods In this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated. Results Two hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p<0.0001); the lowest values were achieved with the Kane (0.214 D), RBF 2.0 (0.215 D), BUII with and without ACD (0.218 D) and SRK/T (0.223 D). A percentage ranging from 80% to 88.5% of eyes showed a PE within ±0.50 D and all formulas achieved more than 50% of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D. Conclusion All investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI