Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34660614›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2021

Comparative Efficacy Between Trifocal and Bifocal Intraocular Lens Among Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ziran Zhang, Haiyang Jiang, Hongwei Zhou, Fang Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Advances in cataract surgery: is a new era on the horizon?Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ziran ZhangDepartment of Clinical Medicine, First Clinical Medical College, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Haiyang JiangDepartment of Geriatrics, Huai'an Medical Area, Affiliated General Hospital of Eastern Theater Command, Huai'an, China.
Hongwei ZhouDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Affiliated Lianshui County People's Hospital of Kangda College of Nanjing Medical Universty, Huai'an, China.
Fang ZhouBeijing Key Laboratory of Megaregions Sustainable Development Modeling, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China.
Capital University of Economics and Business · CNKangda College of Nanjing Medical UniversityNanjing Medical University · CNSecond People’s Hospital of Huai’an · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The comparative efficacy of trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) remained uncertain among patients undergoing cataract surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to answer this question. PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched to capture relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Visual acuity (VA) and patient's satisfaction were regarded as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included residual sphere, spherical equivalence, residual cylinder, posterior capsular opacification (PCO), spectacle independence, and other complications. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan 5.2.0. A total of 9 studies (11 RCTs) with 297 participants (558 eyes) were included. Meta-analysis showed significant differences between trifocal and bifocal IOLs in the uncorrected near VA (mean difference [MD], -0.008; 95% confidence interval [Cl], -0.015 to -0.001;

Indexed as

bifocal intraocular lenscataractmeta-analysistrifocal intraocular lensvisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID34660614
PMCPMC8514957
OpenAlexW3204653782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.