ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2017
Comparison of a hydrogel corneal inlay and monovision laser in situ keratomileusis in presbyopic patients: focus on visual performance and optical quality.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tolerance to surgically induced anisometropia-A systematic review.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Pooled it
- Visual outcomes of Presbyopic Lens Exchange (PRELEX) with bilateral multifocal intraocular lens implantation in the Indian population.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Functional Outcomes and Reading Speeds following PRESBYOND LBV Using Nonlinear Aspheric Ablation Profiles Combined with Micro-Monovision.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Subjective Happiness and Satisfaction in Postoperative Anisometropic Patients after Refractive Surgery for Myopia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the visual performance and optical quality after Raindrop Near Vision Inlay implantation or monovision LASIK for the correction of presbyopia. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective case-series study, patients previously treated in the nondominant eye with monovision LASIK were compared with patients previously implanted with Raindrop Near Vision Inlay. The study enrolled 16 inlay and 15 monovision LASIK patients. Uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, binocular stereopsis, patient satisfaction, and patient task performance were assessed.
resultsPostoperatively, the mean spherical equivalent was -0.66 D (0.78 SD) for the inlay group and -1.03 D (0.56 SD) for the monovision LASIK group. Monocularly, at uncorrected near distances, 60% of inlay patients and 47% of monovision LASIK patients achieved ≥20/20. Monocularly, at uncorrected far distances, 75% of inlay patients and 40% of monovision LASIK patients achieved ≥20/32 vision. Binocularly, at near distances, 79% of inlay patients and 53% of monovision LASIK patients obtained ≥20/20 vision. All patients achieved ≥20/20 binocularly for distance. On average, inlay patients obtained 98 seconds of arc and monovision LASIK patients obtained 286 seconds of arc for stereopsis. Most (79%) of the inlay patients and 66% of monovision LASIK patients were satisfied with their near vision, while 86% of inlay patients and 67% of monovision LASIK patients were satisfied with their distance vision.
conclusionPatients receiving corneal inlays demonstrated better near and distance visual acuities, binocular stereopsis, task performance, and satisfaction, when compared to patients treated with monovision LASIK.
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.