Table 2.
Prediction performance for each formula in all patients (N = 328)
| Formula | PE ± SD (µm) | MAE (µm) | MedAE (µm) | % of eyes within PE range a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ± 50 µm (%) | ± 100 µm (%) | ± 200 µm (%) | ± 300 µm (%) | ||||
| KS | 46.38 ± 154.48 | 126.55 | 101.00 | 23.4 | 49.7 | 79.9 | 94.5 |
| WH | -41.65 ± 157.01 | 131.45 | 116.65 | 22.8 | 43.2 | 80.5 | 93.5 |
| Luo | -68.37 ± 157.97 | 142.01 | 123.62 | 20.4 | 42.3 | 75.7 | 91.7 |
| NK | 54.01 ± 185.08 | 156.20 | 141.50 | 19.8 | 36.7 | 68.9 | 88.2 |
| Hun | 174.00 ± 169.99 | 192.01 | 152.68 | 19.2 | 33.4 | 58.9 | 76.6 |
| ZZ | 172.01 ± 234.87 | 237.48 | 196.00 | 13.0 | 23.4 | 50.9 | 70.3 |
| Zhu | 215.46 ± 191.47 | 241.23 | 225.98 | 10.7 | 23.7 | 45.3 | 65.7 |
The PE, MAE, MedAE, SD, and percentage of eyes with PE within ± 50 µm, ± 100 µm, ± 200 µm, and ± 300 µm for each of the seven formulae. The best MedAE value was found for KS (101.00 µm) and WH (116.65 µm) formulae; the worst result was produced by the ZZ (196.00 µm) and Zhu (225.98 µm) formulae
a = Cochran’s Q test was run to determine whether there were differences in proportion of eyes with a PE within ± 50 µm, ± 100 µm, ± 200 µm, and ± 300 µm of the formulae included. PE within ± 50 µm, ± 100 µm, ± 200 µm, and ± 300 µm were statistically significantly different, P < 0.001
PE prediction error; SD standard deviation; MAE mean absolute prediction error; MedAE median absolute prediction error