ReviewAsia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes of Laser In Situ Keratomileusis and Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction: A Review.
Review in Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management after two consecutive suction losses during small-incision lenticule extraction: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating postoperative quality of life and satisfaction in physicians undergoing small incision lenticule extraction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The impact of femtosecond laser small incision lenticule extraction on accommodative function.African health sciences · 2025Article
- Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) refractive surgery: Our initial experience.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Article
- Commentary: Assessment of subjective functional and emotional compromise in Keratoconus patients: Significance, confounders, and future.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- The 25th Anniversary of Laser Vision Correction in the United States.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Quality of life impact of refractive correction (QIRC) results three years after SMILE and FS-LASIK.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Article
- Twelve-month outcomes of a new refractive lenticular extraction procedure.Journal of optometryArticle
- Will SMILE Become the New Benchmark of Corneal Laser Refractive Surgery?Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) are popular refractive surgeries. The objective refractive outcomes of LASIK and SMILE have been studied extensively; both procedures have comparable safety, efficacy, and predictability. However, owing to various psychosocial factors, refractive patients may report dissatisfaction despite good postoperative vision. Hence the importance of studies on subjective patient-reported outcomes. This review discusses the role of psychometric-technique-based validated questionnaires when evaluating subjective outcomes. It also summarizes the literature on patient-reported outcomes for LASIK and SMILE.
designA literature search was performed on PubMed database to identify studies that have assessed patient-reported outcomes for LASIK and SMILE.
resultsSeveral studies have looked into patient-reported outcome measures for LASIK, but the number of equivalent studies for SMILE is limited. Questionnaires (validated and non-validated) are used to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. Validated questionnaires are designed based on psychometric techniques, such as Classic Test Theory, Item Response Theory, and Rasch analysis. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire, a validated questionnaire administered to both LASIK and SMILE patients, suggests that both groups have comparable vision-related quality of life in the first few months postoperatively; but SMILE might confer a slight advantage in the later postoperative period (postoperative month 6).
conclusionsFuture LASIK-SMILE comparative studies utilizing standardized validated questionnaires for patient-reported outcome measures with longer follow-up durations would be a welcome contribution to this important aspect of refractive surgery.
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.