ReviewInternational journal of ophthalmology2018
Clinical application of accommodating intraocular lens.
Review in International journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Trends in Presbyopia Correction-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- New insights in presbyopia: impact of correction strategies.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Refractive surgery beyond 2020.Eye (London, England) · 2021Review
- Presbyopia Treatments by Mechanism of Action: A New Classification System Based on a Review of the Literature.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Review
- Presbyopia - A Review of Current Treatment Options and Emerging Therapies.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Review
- The effects of premium intraocular lenses on presbyopia treatments.Advances in ophthalmology practice and 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present review describes recent advances in application of accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs). Standard monofocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) only correct distance vision, while AIOLs are designed to allow both good distance vision and near vision, which is achieved through the contraction and relaxation of ciliary muscles by providing transformation of the axial movement or curvature of the lens. Thus, AIOLs may be a better choice for those patients who demand a higher level of visual performance. Since techniques to analyze the performance of AIOLs have not been standardized, and there is a variety of both subjective and objective methods, it is hard to measure the performance of these intraocular lenses. By evaluating advantages and disadvantages of various AIOLs, and introducing techniques for measurement the performance postoperative, this paper can provide some relative information on choosing the type of AIOLs in the clinic.
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.