Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274508 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11332-z | DOI Listing |