SynthesisPloS one2021
Clinical outcomes after small-incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for high myopia: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond 20/20: How Laser Eye Surgery Boosts Quality of Life (SMILE vs. FS-LASIK).Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Influence of Refractive Error, Age, and Ophthalmic Anatomical Characteristics on Refractive Surgery Choices.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK in the SMILE era: a mini review of patient-centered procedure selection.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Factors Affecting Visual Outcome after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) Pro.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2025Article
- Comparison of monovision surgery using ICL V4c or femtosecond laser LASIK for myopia correction in the presbyopia age patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Refractive Predictability After Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction Using a New Nomogram Creation Software Tool Compared to a Matched Control.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Myopic Lenticule Extraction with the Zeiss VisuMax 500 and 800 Systems.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Preoperative Suboptimal Correction and Early Visual Recovery After SMILE: How Full vs Under/Over-Correction Shapes Outcomes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Refractive outcomes of small lenticule extraction (SMILE) Pro® with a 2 MHz femtosecond laser.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of laser correction with a mechanical and laser microkeratome for myopia.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2024Article
- Impact of Dry Eye Disease on the Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of SMILE Combined with Micro-Monovision in Presbyopic Patients: A Pilot Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Laser-based refractive surgery techniques to treat myopia in adults. An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Acta ophthalmologica · 2022Review
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of LASIK, Trans-PRK, and SMILE for correction of myopia.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Analysis of the Effectiveness of SMILE, FS-LASIK, and SBK in Myopic Patients and the Impact in UCVA and Tear Film Stability.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Long-Term Observation of Higher-Order Aberrations and Microdistortions in Bowman's Layer After Small Incision Lenticule Extraction for the Correcting Myopia With Spherical Equivalent Higher Than -9.0 Diopters.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) combined with allogeneic intrastromal lenticule inlay for hyperopia with astigmatism.PloS one · 2021Article
- Early postoperative changes in corneal densitometry after SMILE with 120-μm and 130-μm cap thickness: a comparative study.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
- Deep learning models for predicting opaque bubble layer morphology of keratorefractive lenticule extraction before laser scanning.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare postoperative clinical outcomes of high myopia after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK).
methodsFrom March 2018 to July 2020, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and several Chinese databases were comprehensively searched. The studies meeting the criteria were selected and included; the data were extracted by 2 independent authors. The clinical outcome parameters were analyzed with RevMan 5.3.
resultsThis meta-analysis included twelve studies involving 766 patients (1400 eyes: 748 receiving SMILE and 652 receiving FS-LASIK). Pooled results revealed no significant differences in the following outcomes: the logarithm of the mean angle of resolution (logMAR) of postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.02 to 0.00, I2 = 0%, P = 0.07 at 1 mo; WMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01, I2 = 0%, P = 0.83 at 3 mo; WMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.00, I2 = 32%, P = 0.33 in the long term), and the postoperative mean refractive spherical equivalent (WMD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.03, I2 = 13%, P = 0.30). However, the SMILE group had significantly better postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) than the FS-LASIK group (WMD = -0.04, 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.02, I2 = 0%, P<0.00001). In the long term, postoperative total higher-order aberration (WMD = -0.09, 95% CI: -0.10 to -0.07, I2 = 7%, P<0.00001) and postoperative spherical aberration (WMD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.11, I2 = 29%, P<0.00001) were lower in the SMILE group than in the FS-LASIK group; a significant difference was also found in postoperative coma (WMD = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.06 to -0.03, I2 = 30%, P<0.00001).
conclusionFor patients with high myopia, both SMILE and FS-LASIK are safe, efficacious and predictable. However, the SMILE group demonstrated advantages over the FS-LASIK group in terms of postoperative CDVA, while SMILE induced less aberration than FS-LASIK. It remains to be seen whether SMILE can provide better visual quality than FS-LASIK; further comparative studies focused on high myopia are necessary.
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.