Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27935597›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2017

The evidence informing the surgeon's selection of intraocular lens on the basis of light transmittance properties.

X Li, D Kelly, J M Nolan, J L Dennison, S Beatty

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The Blue Light Hazard Versus Blue Light Hype.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

X LiPharmaceutical & Molecular Biotechnology Research Centre, Department of Chemical & Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
D KellyNutrition Research Centre Ireland, Macular Pigment Research Group, School of Health Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
J M NolanNutrition Research Centre Ireland, Macular Pigment Research Group, School of Health Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
J L DennisonNutrition Research Centre Ireland, Macular Pigment Research Group, School of Health Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
S BeattyNutrition Research Centre Ireland, Macular Pigment Research Group, School of Health Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
Waterford Institute of Technology · IE

Funding

European Research Council 281096
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, manufacturers and distributors have promoted commercially available intraocular lenses (IOLs) with transmittance properties that filter visible short-wavelength (blue) light on the basis of a putative photoprotective effect. Systematic literature review. Out of 21 studies reporting on outcomes following implantation of blue-light-filtering IOLs (involving 8914 patients and 12 919 study eyes undergoing cataract surgery), the primary outcome was vision, sleep pattern, and photoprotection in 9 (42.9%), 9 (42.9%), and 3 (14.2%) respectively, and, of these, only 7 (33.3%) can be classed as high as level 2b (individual cohort study/low-quality randomized controlled trials), all other studies being classed as level 3b or lower. Of the level 2b studies, only one (14.3%) found in favor of blue-light-filtering IOLs vs ultraviolet (UV)-only filtering IOLs on the basis of an association between better post-operative contrast sensitivity (CS) at select frequencies with the former; however, that study did not measure or report CS preoperatively in either group, and the finding may simply reflect better preoperative CS in the eyes scheduled to be implanted with the blue-light-filtering IOL; moreover, that study failed to measure macular pigment, a natural preceptoral filter of blue-light, augmentation of which is now known to improve CS. In terms of photoprotection, there is no level 2b (or higher) evidence in support of blue filtering IOLs vs UV-only filtering IOLs. On the basis of currently available evidence, one cannot advocate for the use of blue-light-filtering IOLs over UV-only filtering IOLs.

Indexed as

Lenses, IntraocularLens Implantation, IntraocularContrast SensitivityEvidence-Based MedicineFiltrationHumansRadiation ProtectionRetinal PigmentsScattering, RadiationRetinal Pigments

Identifiers

PMID27935597
PMCPMC5306461
OpenAlexW2560769197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.