Trial reportScientific reports2020
Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT04019691 (Comparing the Visual Outcome, Visual Quality, and Satisfaction Among Three Types of Multi-focal Intraocular Lenses), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Comparing the Visual Outcome, Visual Quality, and Satisfaction Among Three Types of Multi-focal Intraocular Lenses
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of visual performance between extended depth of focus contact lens and single-vision contact lens in eyes with monofocal intraocular lens.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2021Trial
- Predictions of Through-Focus Performance of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopic Subjects Using a Visual Simulator.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Article
- Early Clinical Outcomes After the Mix-and-Match Approach of Trifocal and Non-Diffractive EDOF IOL.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of the First Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Literature Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Assessment of vivity with French clinical data related to the toric model study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of visual quality after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses with different diopter values in the two eyes: a retrospective study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Observational
- A comparative evaluation of visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes of four premium intraocular lenses.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Review of Mix-and-Match Approach and Binocular Intraocular Lens Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantations of three types of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses that have undergone corneal refractive surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Optical Quality of Monofocal, Enhanced Monofocal, Multifocal, and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Mobile Model Eye Study.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Effect of larger corneal spherical aberration in improving the near visual acuity of eyes implanted with the TECNIS Symfony.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Correction of presbyopia.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022Article
- Clinical Outcomes after Bilateral Implantation of Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Depth of field and visual performance after implantation of a new hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Observational
- Clinical Performance of Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) Intraocular Lenses - A Retrospective Comparative Study of Mini Well Ready and Symfony.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) AcrySof® IQ Vivity® intraocular lens implant: a real-life experience.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021Article
- Clinical Outcomes, Contrast Sensitivity, Reading Performance and Patient Satisfaction Following Bilateral Implantation of AT LARA 829MP EDoF IOLs.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction following implantation of the Mix-and-Match bifocal IOLs (+ 2.75 D and + 3.25 D add power Tecnis Multifocal Model), EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony IOL), and Trifocal IOL (FineVision PodFT, PhysIOL). All outcomes were compared among the three groups. The manifest refraction indicated that the EDOF group had significantly higher myopic spherical equivalent values than did the others. In the terms of visual acuity, there were no significant differences in far or intermediate visual acuity among the three groups. Only in near (33 cm), the EDOF group had significantly worse binocular visual acuity than did the Trifocal group (p = 0.002). Regarding to defocus curve, the Trifocal group had better defocus curves at near distances (- 2.0 to - 3.5 D; p = 0.001 vs. EDOF) than did the other two groups. In contrast sensitivity test, the EDOF group had relatively lower value than did the other two groups. In reading speed, only at 0.3 logMAR (6.5-point font), Mix-and-Match group had a significantly higher reading speed than did the other two groups (p = < 0.001 vs. EDOF, p = 0.007 vs. Trifocal). also Mix-and-Match group showed significantly fewer visual artifacts. There were no differences between the three groups in terms of patient satisfaction.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04019691.
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.