ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2018
Monovision LASIK in emmetropic presbyopic patients.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tolerance to surgically induced anisometropia-A systematic review.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Pooled it
- Treatments for Presbyopia.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Review
- Enhanced Ablation of Cornea Doped with a Fluorescein Dye Using a Visible Wavelength Laser.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Refractive outcomes and optical quality of PRESBYOND laser-blended vision for presbyopia correction.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Temporal evolution of the biological response to laser-induced refractive index change (LIRIC) in rabbit corneas.Experimental eye research · 2021Article
- Multifocal Femto-PresbyLASIK in Pseudophakic Eyes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Lasik as a Solution for High Hypermetropia.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2019Article
- Comparing the vision quality using double-pass technique in eyes with corrected refractive errors and emmetropic eyes.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and patient satisfaction of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) monovision correction in presbyopic emmetropic patients.
methodsA retrospective review of 294 patients who underwent LASIK for monovision was conducted. All patients had preoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity in each eye of 20/25 or better in both eyes and underwent primary LASIK treatment in one eye with a near target; 82 patients underwent surgery in the distant eye for hypermetropia. Patients completed a patient-reported-outcome questionnaire at their one-month postoperative visit. Analysis was performed on a per patient basis with a logistic regression model.
resultsPatients achieved a postoperative mean spherical equivalent of -0.05 diopters (D) in the distant eye and -1.92 D in the near eye. Prior to surgery, 64.7% (n=178) of patients reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with their vision; postoperatively, this increased to 85.4% (n=251). The greatest predictor of dissatisfaction after surgery was severe patient-reported visual phenomena (glare, halos, starbursts, ghosting) (odds ratio 1.18,
conclusionsLASIK monovision for presbyopic patients with low refractive error and good preoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity is both safe and effective with high patient satisfaction. Patients who were dissatisfied in the postoperative period tended to be those with postoperative visual symptoms.
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.