Show simple item record

Gender differences in refraction prediction error of five formulas for cataract surgery

dc.contributor.authorZhang, Yibing
dc.contributor.authorLi, Tingyang
dc.contributor.authorReddy, Aparna
dc.contributor.authorNallasamy, Nambi
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-10T18:13:59Z
dc.date.available2022-08-10T18:13:59Z
dc.date.issued2021-04-21
dc.identifier.citationBMC Ophthalmology. 2021 Apr 21;21(1):183
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01950-2
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/173596en
dc.description.abstractAbstract Objectives To evaluate gender differences in optical biometry measurements and lens power calculations. Methods Eight thousand four hundred thirty-one eyes of five thousand five hundred nineteen patients who underwent cataract surgery at University of Michigan’s Kellogg Eye Center were included in this retrospective study. Data including age, gender, optical biometry, postoperative refraction, implanted intraocular lens (IOL) power, and IOL formula refraction predictions were gathered and/or calculated utilizing the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE) database and analyzed. Results There was a statistical difference between every optical biometry measure between genders. Despite lens constant optimization, mean signed prediction errors (SPEs) of modern IOL formulas differed significantly between genders, with predictions skewed more hyperopic for males and myopic for females for all 5 of the modern IOL formulas tested. Optimization of lens constants by gender significantly decreased prediction error for 2 of the 5 modern IOL formulas tested. Conclusions Gender was found to be an independent predictor of refraction prediction error for all 5 formulas studied. Optimization of lens constants by gender can decrease refraction prediction error for certain modern IOL formulas.
dc.titleGender differences in refraction prediction error of five formulas for cataract surgery
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173596/1/12886_2021_Article_1950.pdf
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.7302/5327
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dc.date.updated2022-08-10T18:13:59Z
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.