ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Cystoid Macular Edema Following Cataract Surgery with Low-Energy Femtosecond Laser versus Conventional Phacoemulsification.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aqueous Proteomic and Metabolomic Profiles in Low-Energy vs High-Energy Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Trial
- Review
- Cystoid macular edema after low-energy femtosecond-assisted cataract surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Comparison of Conventional and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Regarding Macula Behavior and Thickness.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Cataract: Advances in surgery and whether surgery remains the only treatment in future.Advances in ophthalmology practice and research · 2021Review
- Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 1-Year Outcomes of Low-Energy Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery versus Conventional Phacoemulsification.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of perioperative parameters in one-handed rotational phacoemulsification versus conventional phacoemulsification and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare postoperative changes in central subfield macular thickness (CSMT) and prevalence of cystoid macular edema (CME) in patients undergoing cataract surgery with low-energy femtosecond laser versus standard phacoemulsification.
designThis was a retrospective comparative real-world study.
methodsPostoperative data of 252 eyes of 165 patients were collected: 138 eyes received low-energy femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and 114 eyes underwent conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery (CPCS). Postoperative changes in CSMT and prevalence of CME were compared between the two groups.
resultsThere was a significant increase in mean CSMT from preoperative to postoperative values at 2.5 months in both the FLACS and CPCS group (
conclusionThe mean change in CSMT and occurrence of postoperative CME was lower in the low-energy FLACS group than the standard-phacoemulsification group; however, the difference was not statistically significant.
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.