ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Iberoamerican Ophthalmologists IOL Selection for Use on Themselves: Survey Results.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy of femtosecond laser-assisted phacoemulsification in diabetic cataract patients.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Association of Patient Satisfaction with Cataract Grading in Five Types of Multifocal IOLs.Advances in therapy · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the preferred type of intraocular lens (IOL) that ophthalmologists would choose for themselves in case of cataract surgery.
designProspective convenience questionnaire study. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed an electronic survey with seven (7) questions, combining multiple and open options. The following categories were established: monofocal (MonoIOL) without monovision (MonoIOL-SM) and with monovision (MonoIOL-CM) and multifocal (MultiIOL) that could be either a bifocal (MultiIOL-B), trifocal (MultiIOL-T) or extended focus (MultiIOL-E). The link for the survey was sent to ophthalmologists from Latin America and Spain through different ways. The 1209 responses were analyzed statistically.
resultsWe received 1209 responses from 14 countries. The average age was 47.977 years (SD 11.711 years). Gender distribution was 839 males (72.8%) and 313 females (27.2%). Overall preference was MonoIOL-SM 23.90% (289), MonoIOL-CM 12.16% (147), MultiIOL-B 4.63% (56), MultiIOL-T 34.99% (423), MultiIOL-E 15.22% (110), and unsure 9.10% (110). Ophthalmologists that implant IOLs showed a greater preference for MultiIOL (64%) than those who did not implant IOLs (32.3%). Although all ophthalmologists preferred MultiIOL, anterior segment specialists chose them more frequently (59.1%) than posterior segment specialists (41%).
conclusionOphthalmologists would prefer to receive a multifocal IOL implantation despite the lower frequency of multifocal IOL implantation observed in the general population. The frequency was greater among ophthalmologists who implant IOLs compared to those who do not implant them. It was also greater among those who identified themselves as anterior segment specialists compared to posterior segment specialists.
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.