We read with interest the article by Segers et al. where they analyzed the data from a very large sample (more than 2 800 000 cases) obtained from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes (EUREQUO).1 The authors identified several risk factors associated with posterior capsule rupture, including hyperopic target refraction in the biometry. When comparing the eyes targeted for postoperative emmetropia (−0.50 to +0.50 diopters [D]), selecting a myopic target refraction <−1.50 D, turned out to be a protective factor (odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.79, P < .001), whereas selecting a hyperopic target refraction (>0.50 D) was identified as a risk factor for posterior capsule rupture, and the higher the hyperopic target refraction, the greater the risk. For mild hyperopic target refraction, that is +0.51 to +1.50 D, multivariate logistic regression model showed OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43, P < .001, and for higher hyperopic target refraction, that is >+1.50 D, the results showed OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.13-1.65, P < .001. Unfortunately, this information about the target refraction selected by the surgeon when calculating the power of the intraocular lens to be implanted cannot be directly related to anatomical characteristics of the eyeball, and therefore, the conclusions reached are based on assumptions that are not always correct. For example, within the group of eyes with a myopic target refraction <−1.50 D, there could be eyes with any axial length and any previous refractive error, because it could simply be due to the surgeon trying to leave the patient with a monovision. Something similar happens with hyperopic target refraction, because, for example, if a high myopic had a refractive surprise in the first eye, the surgeon could have selected hyperopic target refraction for the second eye to avoid anisometropia, and this does not mean that it was a short eye. This weakness makes it very difficult to reach reliable conclusions about this parameter of the target refraction. On the other hand, some parameters that can be very useful, and that are determined in all eyes undergoing cataract surgery, are the biometric data: the axial length and the depth of the anterior chamber. The various devices available to perform these measurements have shown considerable similarity in their results.2 This information would allow to reach much more reliable conclusions regarding risk factors for posterior capsule rupture. It would be an interesting alternative to evaluate the possibility of including them within the EUREQUO form. Finally, according to Table 2 the parameter “Other comorbidity” was also significantly associated with posterior capsule rupture, and indeed, it was the second highest OR value obtained, surpassed only by corneal opacities (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.91-3.16, P < .001). It is crucial, then, to define which comorbidities were included in this item. In order that this information is more specific, it would be justified consider modifying that question in the form, requiring that if the surgeon answers other, the comorbidity must be described.