Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2025
Subjective Refraction Test Using a Smartphone for Vision Screening
Published on: October 18, 2024
Comparative Accuracy of Barrett Integrated Keratometry Toric Calculator With Predicted Versus Measured Posterior
Purpose:
To compare the prediction accuracy of the Barrett toric calculator using standard or integrated keratometry (IK) mode in combination with predicted or measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) in a group of patients with cataract implanted with non-toric IOLs.
Methods:
In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the medical records of patients with age-related cataract who underwent phacoemulsification with the implantation of an aspheric monofocal IOL were reviewed. Four methods, including standard keratometry with predicted PCA (PPCA), IK combined with predicted PCA (IK-PPCA), and IK combined with measured PCA derived from IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) or CASIA2 (Tomey) (IK-MMPCA or IK-CMPCA), were applied to the Barrett toric calculator to calculate the predicted residual astigmatism. The mean absolute prediction error (MAPE), centroid of the prediction error, and proportion of eyes within the prediction error of ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 diopters (D) were all ciphered out from the four methods, respectively.
Results:
Data from 129 eyes of 129 patients were included in this study. The MAPE of the IK-PPCA method (0.57 ± 0.36 D) was significantly smaller than that of the PPCA (0.62 ± 0.38 D) and IK-CMPCA (0.63 ± 0.46 D) methods (P = .048 and .014, respectively). There were no significant differences in the centroid vectors of prediction errors and predictability rates among the four methods (all P > .05).
Conclusions:
In the current version of the Barrett toric calculator, the predictive accuracy of the IK mode incorporating PPCA was slightly superior to using the standard keratometry mode or incorporating MPCA. [.
