ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Saving of Time Using a Software-Based versus a Manual Workflow for Toric Intraocular Lens Calculation and Implantation.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital versus manual workflows for cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Clinician Review Time and Confidence with Optical Coherence Tomography Digital versus Print-Based Workflows: A Pilot Observer Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Time Savings Using a Digital Workflow versus a Conventional for Intraocular Lens Implantation in a Corporate Chain Hospital Setting.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Efficiency of a Digital Workflow for Cataract Planning in Patients with Astigmatism.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: To determine whether there is a significant saving of time when using a digital cataract workflow for digital data transfer compared to a manual approach of biometry assessment, data export, intraocular lens calculation, and surgery time. Methods: In total, 48 eyes of 24 patients were divided into two groups: 24 eyes were evaluated using a manual approach, whereas another 24 eyes underwent a full digital lens surgery workflow. The primary variables for comparison between both groups were the overall time as well as several time steps starting at optical biometry acquisition until the end of the surgical lens implantation. Other outcomes, such as toric intraocular lens misalignment, reduction of cylinder, surgically induced astigmatism, prediction error, and distance visual acuity were measured. Results: Overall, the total diagnostic and surgical time was reduced from 1364.1 ± 202.6 s in the manual group to 1125.8 ± 183.2 s in the digital group (p < 0.001). The complete time of surgery declined from 756.5 ± 82.3 s to 667.3 ± 56.3 (p < 0.0005). Compared to the manual approach of biometric data export and intraocular lens calculation (76.7 ± 12.3 s) as well as the manual export of the reference image to a portable external storage device (26.8 ± 5.5 s), a highly significant saving of time was achieved (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Using a software-based digital approach to toric intraocular lens implantation is convenient, more efficient, and thus more economical than a manual workflow in surgery practice.
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.