Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29980919›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2018

Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens.

Rita Mencucci, Eleonora Favuzza, Orsola Caporossi, Alfonso Savastano, Stanislao Rizzo

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

100 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Clinical outcomes with an aspheric monofocal and a new enhanced monofocal intraocular lens with modified optical profile.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rita MencucciEye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. rita.mencucci@unifi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1856-6363
Eleonora FavuzzaEye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Orsola CaporossiEye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Alfonso SavastanoEye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Stanislao RizzoEye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare visual and contrast sensitivity (CS) outcomes, reading skills, and spectacle independence in patients implanted with two models of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL.

methodsThis non-randomized prospective series of cases included 120 eyes of 60 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of three different IOLs: the ERV IOL Tecnis Symfony (40 eyes) (Abbott Medical Optics), the trifocal IOLs PanOptix IQ (40 eyes) (Alcon), and AT LISA tri 839MP (40 eyes) (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Visual results, photopic and mesopic CS, binocular reading skills (MNREAD charts), and patient satisfaction were evaluated 3 months after surgery.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity. The Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better mesopic intermediate visual outcomes than the two trifocal IOLs (p < 0.05 vs AT LISA). Under photopic conditions, AT LISA tri 839MP and PanOptix IQ showed better near visual outcomes compared with the ERV IOL (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). The Tecnis Symfony IOL provided significantly better photopic and mesopic CS outcomes than the other IOL models (p < 0.001). Reading skills were not significantly different between the three IOL models (p > 0.05). Less patients implanted with the two trifocal IOLs required a near addition than patients with the ERV IOL.

conclusionsAll the tested IOLs provided good visual outcome, reading performance, and spectacle independence after cataract surgery. While trifocal IOLs gave better near visual acuity results, the ERV IOL provided better contrast sensitivity.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPhakic Intraocular LensesReadingAgedAged, 80 and overContrast SensitivityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignPseudophakiaRefraction, OcularSurveys and QuestionnairesVisual AcuityExtended range of visionIntraocular lensMultifocalReading performanceTrifocal

Identifiers

PMID29980919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.