A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions
Background For primary angle-closure and angle-closure glaucoma, the fact that refractive error sometimes deviates from predictions after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is familiar to cataract surgeons. Since controversy remains in the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas, both traditiona...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0276286-e0276286 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0276286 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0276286 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Lu, Wenhan Hou, Yu Yang, Hongfang Sun, Xinghuai |
| description | Background For primary angle-closure and angle-closure glaucoma, the fact that refractive error sometimes deviates from predictions after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is familiar to cataract surgeons. Since controversy remains in the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas, both traditional and network meta-analysis on formula accuracy were conducted in patients with primary angle-closure conditions. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Aug 2022, focusing on studies on intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure (PAC) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). A systemic review and network meta-analysis was performed. Quality of studies were assessed. Primary outcomes were the mean absolute errors (MAE) and the percentages of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopiters (D) or ±1.00 D (% ±0.50/1.00 D) by different formulas. Results Six retrospective studies involving 419 eyes and 8 formulas (Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay I, RBF 3.0 and LSF) were included. SRK/T was used as a reference as it had been investigated in all the studies included. Direct comparison showed that none of the involved formula outperformed or was defeated by SRK/T significantly in terms of either MAE or % ±0.50/1.00 D (all P>0.05). Network comparison and ranking possibilities disclosed BUII, Kane, RBF 3.0 with statistically insignificant advantage. No significant publication bias was detected by network funnel plot. Conclusions No absolute advantage was disclosed among the formulas involved in this study for PAC/PACG eyes. Further carefully designed studies are warranted to evaluate IOL calculation formulae in this target population. Trail registration Registration: PROSEPRO ID: CRD42022326541. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0276286 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2724875441</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A722408890</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_34ef36fb2f26459094420c655bba0949</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A722408890</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-d2ccd47aa09a13588a0fac0cfee1bcefb716580aac6eabf27746265c27d0b4b53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk82O0zAQxyMEYpeFN0DCEhKCQ4rjOE5yQapWfFRaaSW-rtbEGbcubty1ky19BZ4apw1oi_aAfPBo_PN_xuOZJHme0VmWl9nbtRt8B3a2dR3OKCsFq8SD5Dyrc5YKRvOHd-yz5EkIa0qLvBLicXKWC8ZpVovz5NechH3ocWMU8XhrcEega0mH_c75H2SDPaQQw-yDCcRpAkoNHtR-tE3Xe3BqsOCJxS6QrduhJwrs6OuN64h2fhPtEFmy9WYDfh_1lxZTZV0YPBLlutaMbHiaPNJgAz6b9ovk24f3Xy8_pVfXHxeX86tUCVH3acuUankJQGvI8qKqgGpQVGnErFGomzITRUUBlEBoNCtLLpgoFCtb2vCmyC-SF0fdbUxBTmUMkpWMV2XBeRaJxZFoHazllLd0YOTB4fxSgu-NsihzjjoXumGaCV7UtOacUSWKomligryOWu-maEOzwVbhWDR7Inp60pmVXLpbWReiyMsqCryeBLy7GTD0cmOCQmuhQzcc8i5Y_MxsjPXyH_T-103UEuIDTKddjKtGUTkvWWyMqqpppGb3UHG1Y6_EntMm-k8uvDm5EJkef_ZLGEKQiy-f_5-9_n7KvrrDrhBsvwrODoeeOQX5EVTeheBR_y1yRuU4Mn-qIceRkdPI5L8By_cKuw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2724875441</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Lu, Wenhan ; Hou, Yu ; Yang, Hongfang ; Sun, Xinghuai</creator><creatorcontrib>Lu, Wenhan ; Hou, Yu ; Yang, Hongfang ; Sun, Xinghuai</creatorcontrib><description>Background For primary angle-closure and angle-closure glaucoma, the fact that refractive error sometimes deviates from predictions after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is familiar to cataract surgeons. Since controversy remains in the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas, both traditional and network meta-analysis on formula accuracy were conducted in patients with primary angle-closure conditions. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Aug 2022, focusing on studies on intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure (PAC) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). A systemic review and network meta-analysis was performed. Quality of studies were assessed. Primary outcomes were the mean absolute errors (MAE) and the percentages of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopiters (D) or ±1.00 D (% ±0.50/1.00 D) by different formulas. Results Six retrospective studies involving 419 eyes and 8 formulas (Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay I, RBF 3.0 and LSF) were included. SRK/T was used as a reference as it had been investigated in all the studies included. Direct comparison showed that none of the involved formula outperformed or was defeated by SRK/T significantly in terms of either MAE or % ±0.50/1.00 D (all P>0.05). Network comparison and ranking possibilities disclosed BUII, Kane, RBF 3.0 with statistically insignificant advantage. No significant publication bias was detected by network funnel plot. Conclusions No absolute advantage was disclosed among the formulas involved in this study for PAC/PACG eyes. Further carefully designed studies are warranted to evaluate IOL calculation formulae in this target population. Trail registration Registration: PROSEPRO ID: CRD42022326541.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276286</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36240196</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biometrics ; Care and treatment ; Cataracts ; Complications and side effects ; Eye ; Eye diseases ; Eye surgery ; Glaucoma ; Health risks ; Intraocular lenses ; Mathematical analysis ; Medical ethics ; Medical personnel ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Patient outcomes ; Physical Sciences ; Quality assessment ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Science Policy</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0276286-e0276286</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Lu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Lu et al 2022 Lu et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-d2ccd47aa09a13588a0fac0cfee1bcefb716580aac6eabf27746265c27d0b4b53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-d2ccd47aa09a13588a0fac0cfee1bcefb716580aac6eabf27746265c27d0b4b53</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3890-5553</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9565378/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9565378/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lu, Wenhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hou, Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Hongfang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Xinghuai</creatorcontrib><title>A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Background For primary angle-closure and angle-closure glaucoma, the fact that refractive error sometimes deviates from predictions after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is familiar to cataract surgeons. Since controversy remains in the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas, both traditional and network meta-analysis on formula accuracy were conducted in patients with primary angle-closure conditions. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Aug 2022, focusing on studies on intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure (PAC) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). A systemic review and network meta-analysis was performed. Quality of studies were assessed. Primary outcomes were the mean absolute errors (MAE) and the percentages of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopiters (D) or ±1.00 D (% ±0.50/1.00 D) by different formulas. Results Six retrospective studies involving 419 eyes and 8 formulas (Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay I, RBF 3.0 and LSF) were included. SRK/T was used as a reference as it had been investigated in all the studies included. Direct comparison showed that none of the involved formula outperformed or was defeated by SRK/T significantly in terms of either MAE or % ±0.50/1.00 D (all P>0.05). Network comparison and ranking possibilities disclosed BUII, Kane, RBF 3.0 with statistically insignificant advantage. No significant publication bias was detected by network funnel plot. Conclusions No absolute advantage was disclosed among the formulas involved in this study for PAC/PACG eyes. Further carefully designed studies are warranted to evaluate IOL calculation formulae in this target population. Trail registration Registration: PROSEPRO ID: CRD42022326541.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biometrics</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Cataracts</subject><subject>Complications and side effects</subject><subject>Eye</subject><subject>Eye diseases</subject><subject>Eye surgery</subject><subject>Glaucoma</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Intraocular lenses</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk82O0zAQxyMEYpeFN0DCEhKCQ4rjOE5yQapWfFRaaSW-rtbEGbcubty1ky19BZ4apw1oi_aAfPBo_PN_xuOZJHme0VmWl9nbtRt8B3a2dR3OKCsFq8SD5Dyrc5YKRvOHd-yz5EkIa0qLvBLicXKWC8ZpVovz5NechH3ocWMU8XhrcEega0mH_c75H2SDPaQQw-yDCcRpAkoNHtR-tE3Xe3BqsOCJxS6QrduhJwrs6OuN64h2fhPtEFmy9WYDfh_1lxZTZV0YPBLlutaMbHiaPNJgAz6b9ovk24f3Xy8_pVfXHxeX86tUCVH3acuUankJQGvI8qKqgGpQVGnErFGomzITRUUBlEBoNCtLLpgoFCtb2vCmyC-SF0fdbUxBTmUMkpWMV2XBeRaJxZFoHazllLd0YOTB4fxSgu-NsihzjjoXumGaCV7UtOacUSWKomligryOWu-maEOzwVbhWDR7Inp60pmVXLpbWReiyMsqCryeBLy7GTD0cmOCQmuhQzcc8i5Y_MxsjPXyH_T-103UEuIDTKddjKtGUTkvWWyMqqpppGb3UHG1Y6_EntMm-k8uvDm5EJkef_ZLGEKQiy-f_5-9_n7KvrrDrhBsvwrODoeeOQX5EVTeheBR_y1yRuU4Mn-qIceRkdPI5L8By_cKuw</recordid><startdate>20221014</startdate><enddate>20221014</enddate><creator>Lu, Wenhan</creator><creator>Hou, Yu</creator><creator>Yang, Hongfang</creator><creator>Sun, Xinghuai</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3890-5553</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221014</creationdate><title>A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions</title><author>Lu, Wenhan ; Hou, Yu ; Yang, Hongfang ; Sun, Xinghuai</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-d2ccd47aa09a13588a0fac0cfee1bcefb716580aac6eabf27746265c27d0b4b53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biometrics</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Cataracts</topic><topic>Complications and side effects</topic><topic>Eye</topic><topic>Eye diseases</topic><topic>Eye surgery</topic><topic>Glaucoma</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Intraocular lenses</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lu, Wenhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hou, Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Hongfang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Xinghuai</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lu, Wenhan</au><au>Hou, Yu</au><au>Yang, Hongfang</au><au>Sun, Xinghuai</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-10-14</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0276286</spage><epage>e0276286</epage><pages>e0276286-e0276286</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Background For primary angle-closure and angle-closure glaucoma, the fact that refractive error sometimes deviates from predictions after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is familiar to cataract surgeons. Since controversy remains in the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas, both traditional and network meta-analysis on formula accuracy were conducted in patients with primary angle-closure conditions. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Aug 2022, focusing on studies on intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure (PAC) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). A systemic review and network meta-analysis was performed. Quality of studies were assessed. Primary outcomes were the mean absolute errors (MAE) and the percentages of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopiters (D) or ±1.00 D (% ±0.50/1.00 D) by different formulas. Results Six retrospective studies involving 419 eyes and 8 formulas (Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay I, RBF 3.0 and LSF) were included. SRK/T was used as a reference as it had been investigated in all the studies included. Direct comparison showed that none of the involved formula outperformed or was defeated by SRK/T significantly in terms of either MAE or % ±0.50/1.00 D (all P>0.05). Network comparison and ranking possibilities disclosed BUII, Kane, RBF 3.0 with statistically insignificant advantage. No significant publication bias was detected by network funnel plot. Conclusions No absolute advantage was disclosed among the formulas involved in this study for PAC/PACG eyes. Further carefully designed studies are warranted to evaluate IOL calculation formulae in this target population. Trail registration Registration: PROSEPRO ID: CRD42022326541.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>36240196</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0276286</doi><tpages>e0276286</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3890-5553</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0276286-e0276286 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2724875441 |
| source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Accuracy Bias Biology and Life Sciences Biometrics Care and treatment Cataracts Complications and side effects Eye Eye diseases Eye surgery Glaucoma Health risks Intraocular lenses Mathematical analysis Medical ethics Medical personnel Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Patient outcomes Physical Sciences Quality assessment Research and Analysis Methods Science Policy |
| title | A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T14%3A38%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20systemic%20review%20and%20network%20meta-analysis%20of%20accuracy%20of%20intraocular%20lens%20power%20calculation%20formulas%20in%20primary%20angle-closure%20conditions&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Lu,%20Wenhan&rft.date=2022-10-14&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0276286&rft.epage=e0276286&rft.pages=e0276286-e0276286&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0276286&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA722408890%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2724875441&rft_id=info:pmid/36240196&rft_galeid=A722408890&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_34ef36fb2f26459094420c655bba0949&rfr_iscdi=true |