SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison of rigid versus foldable iris-fixed phakic intraocular lens implantation for high myopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artisan versus Artiflex phakic intraocular lens implantation in the treatment of moderate to high myopia: meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of capsule treatment on visual acuity and quality after phacoemulsification lens implantation in myopic patients with cataract.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Trial
- Higher order aberrations and visual quality after refractive surgeries for myopia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Comparison of Iris-Claw Phakic Lens Implant versus Corneal Laser Techniques in High Myopia: A Five-Year Follow-Up Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the efficacy of rigid versus foldable iris-fixed phakic intraocular lens (PIOL) implantation in the treatment of high myopia.
methodsA systematic search based on electronic databases such as Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify relevant studies published up to January 11, 2019. The pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
resultsEight comparative studies with 835 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The overall WMD showed statistical significance in terms of postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), mean postoperative spherical equivalence (SE), and mean postoperative intraocular higher-order aberrations (HOA) (μm) for a 6-mm pupil, suggesting that foldable PIOL group showed significant improvement of high myopia, compared to rigid PIOL group. Besides, compared with rigid PIOL group, foldable PIOL group had beneficial effect on the proportion of eyes with central endothelial cell density (ECD) loss in patients with high myopia.
conclusionThis meta-analysis provided the up-to-date evidence and found that foldable PIOL group had significant beneficial effect on UDVA, SE, HOA, contrast sensitivity, and ECD, except best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, and safety in the treatment of high myopia over rigid PIOL group.
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.