Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31325106›Full record

ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2019

Comparison of Visual, Refractive and Ocular Surface Outcomes Between Small Incision Lenticule Extraction and Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism.

Yumi Tsz-Ying Lau, Kendrick Co Shih, Ryan Hin-Kai Tse, Tommy Chung-Yan Chan, Vishal Jhanji

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assessing the predictability of five intraocular lens calculation methods in eyes with prior myopic keratorefractive lenticule extraction.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparison of risk factors for OBL in FS-LASIK and SMILE correction for myopia and myopia astigmatism.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Complications of small incision lenticule extraction.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020
    Review
  20. Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Yumi Tsz-Ying LauDepartment of Ophthalmology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Kendrick Co ShihDepartment of Ophthalmology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. kcshih@hku.hk.
Ryan Hin-Kai TseDepartment of Ophthalmology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Tommy Chung-Yan ChanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Vishal JhanjiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, USA.
University of Hong Kong · HKChinese University of Hong Kong · CNUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is the most commonly performed laser refractive surgical technique worldwide for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism. In recent years, small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) has emerged as a promising alternative to LASIK, requiring only a single femtosecond laser to create an intrastromal lenticule, which is then removed via a small incision. The technique obviates the need for a corneal flap. A number of published studies have compared the two techniques in terms of visual, refractive and ocular surface outcomes. This review compares the clinical outcomes between LASIK and SMILE in treating myopia and myopic astigmatism based on studies published in the last 5 years. Twenty-two studies were included, all of which were observational in nature. Results suggest that the two techniques have comparable visual outcomes in terms of safety, efficacy and predictability, although recovery in visual acuity may be slower in SMILE-treated than LASIK-treated eyes. SMILE is found to result in less severe postoperative dry eye symptoms and faster recovery of corneal sensitivity than LASIK. It is important to note, however, that the SMILE technique is limited by the lack of a cyclotorsion-compensation system and option for customized treatment profile. The heterogeneity of results in this review may be attributable to the use of different LASIK platforms in different studies. Few studies compared the outcomes regarding severity of myopia. Future prospective randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size and longer follow-up period will be highly beneficial for progress in this field.

Indexed as

AstigmatismCorneal sensitivityDry eyeLaser refractive surgeryLASIKMyopiaSMILE

Identifiers

PMID31325106
PMCPMC6692806
OpenAlexW2963108826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.