ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2018
Control-matched comparison of refractive and visual outcomes between small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of LASIK, Trans-PRK, and SMILE for correction of myopia.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Comparison of Corneal Optical Quality After SMILE, Wavefront-Optimized LASIK and Topography-Guided LASIK for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of corneal aberrations and refractive outcomes after small-incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond-assisted laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Comparison of Visual, Refractive and Ocular Surface Outcomes Between Small Incision Lenticule Extraction and Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective case-matched study aimed to compare visual and refractive outcomes between small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and LASIK. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients who underwent SMILE (34 eyes of 23 patients) or LASIK (34 eyes of 24 patients) were enrolled and matched according to preoperative manifest refractive spherical equivalents. The mean preoperative manifest refractive spherical equivalent was -4.69±0.6 and -4.67±0.64 D in the SMILE and LASIK groups, respectively. The safety, efficacy, and predictability were compared 3 months after surgery. Changes in corneal refractive power from the center to peripheral points and their maintenance ratios were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
resultsIn the SMILE and LASIK groups, 82.4% and 85.3% of patients, respectively, achieved 20/13 or better uncorrected distance visual acuity (
conclusionBoth groups achieved similar high efficacy and safety. SMILE surgery resulted in higher refractive power correction in the peripheral cornea than LASIK surgery.
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.