Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2025

Absolute Quantum Yield Measurement of Powder Samples
Published on: May 12, 2012
Comparison of the new Hoffer QST with 4 modern accurate formulas
Leonardo Taroni1, Kenneth J Hoffer, Marco Pellegrini
1From the Ophthalmology Unit, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy (Taroni); Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California (Hoffer); St. Mary's Eye Center, Santa Monica, California (Hoffer); Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy (Pellegrini); Department of Ophthalmology, Ospedali Privati Forlì"Villa Igea," Forlì, Italy (Pellegrini); Istituto Internazionale per la Ricerca e Formazione in Oftalmologia (IRFO), Forlì, Italy (Pellegrini); Eye Clinic, S.Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (Lupardi); I.R.C.C.S.-G.B. Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy (Savini).
Purpose:
To investigate the new Hoffer QST (Savini/Taroni) formula (HQST) and compare it with the original Hoffer Q (HQ) and 4 latest generation formulas.
Setting:
I.R.C.C.S.-G.B. Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Design:
Retrospective case series.
Methods:
Refractive outcomes of the HQST, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, HQ, Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 formulas were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed in short (<22 mm) and long (>25 mm) axial length eyes. The SD of the prediction error (PE) was investigated using the heteroscedastic method.
Results:
1259 eyes of 1259 patients divided in a White group (n=696), implanted with the AcriSof SN60AT (Alcon Labs), and an Asian group (n=563), implanted with the SN60WF (Alcon Labs), were investigated. In the Asian group, the heteroscedastic method did not disclose any significant difference among the SD of the 4 modern formulas (range from 0.333 to 0.346 D), whereas the SD of the HQ formula (0.384 D) was significantly higher. Compared with the original HQ formula, in both White and Asian groups, the HQST formula avoided the mean myopic PE in short eyes and the mean hyperopic PE in long eyes.
Conclusions:
The new HQST formula was superior to the original HQ formula and reached statistical and clinical results comparable with those achieved by the BUII, EVO, Kane, and RBF formulas.
Related Concept Videos
Estimation of the Physical Quantities
Reaction Quotient
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
Coulometry: Overview
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test
2D NMR: Heteronuclear Single-Quantum Correlation Spectroscopy (HSQC)

