ArticlePloS one2019
Vision with different presbyopia corrections simulated with a portable binocular visual simulator.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive-Optics-Based Simulation of Astigmatism Effects on Visual Acuity with Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Observational
- Simulated vs. real visual performance of an EDOF intraocular lens using adaptive optics technology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Observational
- Halo Measurements in Simulated Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Assessing Ocular Dominance: Rethinking the Current Paradigm.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2025Article
- Visual simulation of intraocular lenses: technologies and applications [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2025Review
- Perceptual cost and benefit of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: effect of energy balance, addition, and adaptation.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Visual simulation of intraocular lenses: from on-bench performance to computational and experimental validations.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Head-mounted adaptive optics visual simulator.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Defocus flicker of chromatic stimuli deactivates accommodation.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Monovision Correction Preference and Eye Dominance Measurements.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Adaptive optics visual simulators: a review of recent optical designs and applications [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2022Review
- A Novel Intraocular Lens Simulator that Allows Patients to Experience the World Through Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Before Surgeries.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- How does the world appear to patients with multifocal intraocular lenses?: a mobile model eye experiment.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presbyopes can choose today among different corrections to provide them with functional vision at far and near, and the outcomes and patient satisfaction depend on the selection. In this study, we present a binocular and portable vision simulator, based on temporal multiplexing of two synchronized tunable lenses allowing see-through and programmable visual simulations of presbyopic corrections. Seventeen binocular corrections were tested: 3 Monofocal (Far, Intermediate, Near), 4 Simultaneous Vision (bifocal, trifocal), 2 Monovision (far and near in either eye) and 8 Modified Monovision corrections (Simultaneous vision in one eye, Monofocal in the other eye). Perceived visual quality was assessed through the simulated corrections in 8 cyclopleged subjects who viewed a composite realistic visual scene with high contrast letters and a landscape at far (4 m) and a high contrast text at intermediate (66 cm) and near (33 cm) distances. Perceptual scores were obtained on a scale of 0 to 5 (low to high perceived quality). Perceptual preference was assessed by judging 36 random image pairs (6 repetitions) viewed through 9 binocular presbyopic corrections using two-interval forced choice procedures. The average score, across far and near distances, was the highest for Monovision (4.4±0.3), followed by Modified Monovision (3.4±0.1), Simultaneous Vision (3.0±0.1) and Monofocal corrections (2.9±0.2). However, the mean difference between far and near was lower for Simultaneous Vision and Monovision (0.4±0.1 PS) than Modified Monovision (1.8±0.7) or monofocal corrections (3.3±1.5). A strong significant correlation was found between the perceptual scores and the percentages of energy in focus, for each correction and distance (R = 0.64, p<0.0001). Multivariate ANOVA revealed significant influence of observation distances (p<10-9) and patients (p = 0.01) on Perceptual Score. In conclusion, we have developed a binocular portable vision simulator that can simulate rapidly and non-invasively different combinations of presbyopic corrections. This tool has applications in systematic clinical evaluation of presbyopia corrections.
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.