ReviewEye (London, England)2016
Ultraviolet or blue-filtering intraocular lenses: what is the evidence?
Review in Eye (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blue-light filtering intraocular lenses (IOLs) for protecting macular health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Innovative Polymeric Biomaterials for Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Comparative visual performance of ultraviolet light-filtering and violet light-filtering monofocal intraocular lenses of the same material and basic design.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Blue Light and Digital Screens Revisited: A New Look at Blue Light from the Vision Quality, Circadian Rhythm and Cognitive Functions Perspective.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Review
- Blue Light Filtration in Intraocular Lenses: Effects on Visual Function and Systemic Health.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Clinical Evaluation of a Modified Light Transmission Short-Wavelength Filtering Intraocular Lens Compared to a Colorless Control.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Blue Light Exposure: Ocular Hazards and Prevention-A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Review
- Recent Advances of Intraocular Lens Materials and Surface Modification in Cataract Surgery.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- The Effects of Blue Light-Filtering Intraocular Lenses on the Protection and Function of the Visual System.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Review
- Comment on 'The evidence informing the surgeon's selection of intraocular lens on the basis of light transmittance properties'.Eye (London, England) · 2017Article
- Influence of Intraocular Lens Asphericity and Blue Light Filtering on Visual Outcome, Contrast Sensitivity, and Aberrometry after Uneventful Cataract Extraction.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cataract surgery was revolutionised by the introduction of modern intraocular lenses in the late 1940's. By the late 1960's to 1970's evidence had emerged that short-wavelength light caused phototoxicity at the retina and retinal pigment epithelium. By the early 1980's ultraviolet filters had been incorporated into intraocular lenses. This caused intense controversy, as there was concern that the UV-filtering chromophore might leach out into the eye causing toxicity. With the arrival of blue-filtering intraocular lenses (BFIOLs) in 1990's, a further debate was ignited as to their safety and potential disadvantages. Selecting the optimal performing intraocular lens to obtain the best visual performance with the fewest potential drawbacks has become complex and challenging for cataract surgeons and their patients with the wide choice of lenses available. Choosing a personalised lens to address astigmatism, presbyopia, spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, and potentially to shield the retina from short-wavelength light is now possible. The potential benefits and possible side effects of these different innovations emphasise the importance of assessing the evidence for their clinical utility, allowing the surgeon and the patient to weigh-up the risk benefit ratio and make an informed decision. The BFIOLs were developed to reduce cyanopsia, address chromatic aberration, and improve contrast sensitivity in different lighting conditions, as well as to prevent short-wavelength light reaching the retina thus potentially reducing the risk of developing age-related macular degeneration. Further design development of the BFIOLs was to mimic the natural crystalline lens absorption and transmittance properties in adulthood. Multiple publications have reported on the potential benefits and pitfalls of implanting a blue-filtering lens. The potential disadvantages raised in the literature over the last 25 years since their introduction, regarding compromise of visual function and disruption of the circadian system, have been largely dispelled. The clear benefits of protecting the retina from short-wavelength light make a BFIOLs a sensible choice. The purpose of this article presented at the Cambridge symposium 2015 is to review the literature on this subject.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.