7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Axial Length Correction in Evaluation of Refractive Predictability and Biometry Agreement [Response to Letter]

      reply

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dear editor We appreciate the interest of Cione et al in our study. Obviously, we agree that crystalline lens opacity is a relevant source of error for axial length (AL) measurements. This was briefly mentioned in the introduction as well as in the discussion (in relevance to the agreement of lens thickness measurements between instruments). A more detailed discussion of the refractive index (RI) in the human lens according to the grade of cataract could have been included, as could the ratio of corneal thickness to AL. The study by de Bernardo et al is very interesting and shows that a linear regression formula based on postoperative AL measurements could improve accuracy of AL measurements based on group refractive index (GRI).1 Comparing this method with measurements based on segmental RI would be interesting. However, the formula was developed using a PCI biometer which does not measure lens thickness (LT) or postoperative ACD. We believe such correction would need to be developed for the same type of biometer it should be used with, for instance, OLCR or OCT biometers, which include LT and postoperative ACD measurements. Cione et al state concern about the reported mean arithmetic refractive prediction error (RPE) for the Lenstar being different from zero. The bias of the RPE with the Lenstar (0.17 D) indicated that these constants, despite previous optimization for the Lenstar, were not optimal for the study sample. Therefore, we also analyzed results after reducing the arithmetic mean error (for each IOL type, surgeon and biometer) to zero, as suggested Wang et al.2 The point of such adjustments is to mimic optimal lens constants so that the results are based on the spread of the data, not lens constants that are less than perfect. Also, when using these methods there is no reason to exclude toric IOLs in a study of (spherical equivalent) refractive prediction. Cione et al are also concerned that we did not report the number of eyes analyzed for each IOL because an optimization process should include at least three cases. In the study, all combinations of IOL models and surgeons had 13 or more eyes except for one which was based on four eyes. We would like to point out that we did not do an optimization of lens constants for future use. We merely adjusted the mean by subtracting the mean error for each IOL type, surgeon and biometer. Therefore, we believe that the number of eyes was not necessary information. The authors of the letter also question if it is correct to optimize formulas for each biometer in a study that aims to analyze differences between these devices. First, we believe that analyzing results with optimized constants reflects a clinical setting, in which optimized constants would be used to improve refractive precision. Most of the studies we compared also used optimized constants. Second, in this study, the optimization (or the zeroing of the mean error) was not based on axial length. Third, as pointed out above, even if the mean is zero the mean or median or absolute error will reflect the spread of the data. This is described in several papers.2–4 The differences of the measurements between the devices were clearly demonstrated in the “agreement of biometry” section of the article. In our study, results of normality checks were not explicitly reported. However, it was clearly stated in the methods that analyses were performed using parametric or non-parametric tests as appropriate. So, for instance, when we used the Friedman test this indicated non-normality of the data. We agree with Cione et al that the statistical test used for comparing percentages (Cochrane’s Q test) should have been reported. We also agree that the small samples in the short and long eyes groups are not sufficient to make conclusions. As suggested, analyzing quartiles according to axial length is an alternative approach that could have been used in addition. However, given the small differences in the normal AL-group, it appears unlikely that this would give clinically significant differences.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Protocols for studies of intraocular lens formula accuracy.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: III. Criteria for analyzing outcomes.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Update on Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Study Protocols: The Better Way to Design and Report Clinical Trials.

              It was almost 40 years ago when one of the authors (K.J.H.) published an organized system to quantify the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, methods, and instruments. At the behest of the editor of the American Journal of Ophthalmology, the IOL Power Club (along with a statistician) published an editorial in 2015 modernizing and quantifying the proper protocols for these studies. Over the past decade, so many new optical biometers, formulas, and methods (whose accuracies have yet to be completely tested) have been introduced that we were asked to modernize and update these guidelines yet again to help others design and report correctly the results of clinical studies on IOL power calculation and biometry for 2020. We evaluated guidelines to enroll patients, including visual acuity minimums, exclusion of bilateral eyes, sample size issues, demographics (age, gender, and ethnicity), and whether such studies should not be performed using the same data that were used to develop the formula being tested. We showed the absolute need for constant optimization, which formulas should be tested for comparison, refraction measurement (testing distance), as well as the analysis of the prediction error (median and mean absolute errors; standard deviation; range of errors; percentage of eyes with a prediction within ±0.25 diopter [D], ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D; and interquartile displays) and statistical methods of analyses. We present methods of ranking formula accuracy, including the new Haigis IOL Formula Performance Index. We also point out the issues of who programmed the formulas being tested, that all formulas used in the study must be referenced, and the software version number of all instruments used in the study should be stated clearly. The definition of anterior chamber depth should be stated as measured from the corneal epithelium to the lens. We hope that these recommendations will help researchers to improve the validity and accuracy of their studies with the ultimate goal to improve the accuracy of IOL power calculation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Ophthalmol
                Clin Ophthalmol
                opth
                Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
                Dove
                1177-5467
                1177-5483
                06 September 2023
                2023
                : 17
                : 2631-2632
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ifocus Eye Clinic , Stavanger, Norway
                [2 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University , Oslo, Norway
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Bjørn Gjerdrum, Ifocus Eye Clinic , Brønngata 36, Stavanger, 4008, Norway, Tel +47 415 11935, Email bjorn@ifocus.no
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6886-5196
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-0225
                http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2867-3336
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0050-1708
                Article
                435340
                10.2147/OPTH.S435340
                10493141
                37701465
                40b0e7a5-d37c-4af1-a693-eb241e4848b3
                © 2023 Gjerdrum et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 14 August 2023
                : 28 August 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, References: 4, Pages: 2
                Categories
                Response to Letter

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                Ophthalmology & Optometry

                Comments

                Comment on this article