FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4255061853> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4255061853 endingPage "e88" @default.
• W4255061853 startingPage "e87" @default.
• W4255061853 abstract "We appreciate De Bernardo and coworkers’ interest in this topic and their comments on our article. We elected not to optimize intraocular lens constants and zero the mean error in this series because improving outcomes by using atypical constants is of little practical benefit in atypical eyes. We fully agree that zeroing the mean error should be done when comparing formula performance in series of normal eyes, and this is what we have done in our previous publications. What is required in unusual subsets is a formula that can be used with the same constants as normal eyes and still provide accurate outcomes. Regarding the statistical comparison of absolute errors that lack a normal distribution, the Wilcoxon test is commonly recommended for this purpose.1Wang L. Koch D.D. Hill W. et al.Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: III. Criteria for analysing outcomes.J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017; 43: 999-1002Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (95) Google Scholar Other statistical methods could be used, but it is unlikely that they would change the material findings of our study. Generalized estimating equations have a role when adjusting for the use of bilateral eyes that tend to have a similar outcome, but their use tends to be reserved for larger studies. Using this method to compensate for relatively low numbers of atypical cases was not considered appropriate because it was likely to result in an underestimation of significance and loss of valuable data. Our study was designed to compare the True K formula with other intraocular lens calculation methods commonly used to deal with eyes after radial keratotomy (predominantly those included in the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery calculator), rather than serve as an exhaustive review of all methods. The R Factor method was initially described by Rosa et al2Rosa N. Capasso L. Lanza M. et al.Reliability of a new correcting factor in calculating intraocular lens power after refractive corneal surgery.J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31: 1020-1024Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (40) Google Scholar in 2005 for use after LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy, but so far has not gained traction in terms of being included in either the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery calculator or other recent reviews of this topic.3Ma J.X. Tang M. Wang L. et al.Comparison of newer IOL power calculation methods for eyes with previous radial keratotomy.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016; 57: OCT162-168Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar,4Savini G. Hoffer K.J. Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.Eye Vis. 2018; 5: 18Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar In a 2011 study of 9 intraocular lens calculation formulae for postmyopic LASIK eyes, several of which have since been superseded by improved methods, the R Factor was found to be one of the least accurate.5McCarthy M. Gavanski G.M. Paton K.E. et al.Intraocular lens power calculations after myopic laser refractive surgery: a comparison of methods in 173 eyes.Ophthalmology. 2011; 118: 940-944Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar We admit to not being aware of the R Factor being used in the context of post-radial keratotomy eyes, which differ considerably from post-LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy eyes, and indeed a Pubmed search of [“radial keratotomy” AND “R factor”] performed on April 29, 2020 returned zero results. Re: Turnbull et al.: Methods for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery after radial keratotomy (Ophthalmology. 2020;127:45-51)OphthalmologyVol. 127Issue 10PreviewWe read with interest the article by Turnbull et al1 concerning intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after radial keratotomy. We would like to congratulate the authors for their article because this is an important topic. However, we would like to make some comments on points that, in our opinion, should be clarified. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W4255061853 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4255061853 creator A5008049606 @default.
• W4255061853 creator A5018773569 @default.
• W4255061853 date "2020-10-01" @default.
• W4255061853 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4255061853 title "Reply" @default.
• W4255061853 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.05.023" @default.
• W4255061853 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32739179" @default.
• W4255061853 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W4255061853 type Work @default.
• W4255061853 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4255061853 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4255061853 hasAuthorship W4255061853A5008049606 @default.
• W4255061853 hasAuthorship W4255061853A5018773569 @default.
• W4255061853 hasBestOaLocation W42550618531 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C12868164 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C206041023 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C105795698 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C118487528 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C119767625 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C126322002 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C12868164 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C206041023 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C33923547 @default.
• W4255061853 hasConceptScore W4255061853C71924100 @default.
• W4255061853 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W4255061853 hasLocation W42550618531 @default.
• W4255061853 hasLocation W42550618532 @default.
• W4255061853 hasOpenAccess W4255061853 @default.
• W4255061853 hasPrimaryLocation W42550618531 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W1965291129 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W1988114788 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W2027042777 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W2095780794 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W2098223125 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W2810926332 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W4233250986 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W4248824858 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W4281954079 @default.
• W4255061853 hasRelatedWork W584167426 @default.
• W4255061853 hasVolume "127" @default.
• W4255061853 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4255061853 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4255061853 workType "article" @default.