ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Academy IRIS
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of a New Endocapsular Device Used in Age-Related Cataract Surgery: Twelve-Month Follow-Up.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of a segmented refractive multifocal IOL: visual outcomes, rotational stability, and the role of higher-order aberrations.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Unanswered questions regarding the pathogenesis of late onset posterior capsular opacification.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG) laser treatment in ophthalmology: a review of the most common procedures Capsulotomy and Iridotomy.Lasers in medical science · 2024Review
- Article
- YAG Capsulotomy Rates in Patients Following Cataract Surgery and Implantation of New Hydrophobic Preloaded Intraocular Lens in an Australian Cohort: 3-Year Results.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Academy IRIS Methods: This retrospective analysis included eyes implanted with 1 of 2 IOL brands, with ≥365 days of follow-up available in the IRIS Registry, and ≥2 visits within 180 days of surgery. Analyses included Nd:YAG incidence due to PCO within 1 year after surgery by IOL type and brand, mean time to PCO diagnosis, and mean time to Nd:YAG. Results: Of 89,947 eyes after cataract surgery, 24,834 (28%) had PCO diagnosis within 365 days, and 9262 (10%) underwent Nd:YAG; 4.1% of 57,523 eyes with monofocal and 21.2% of 32,424 eyes with diffractive multifocal (MF) or diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs had Nd:YAG. Nd:YAG was 3.2 times more likely in eyes with diffractive MF or diffractive EDOF IOLs versus monofocal. For monofocal IOLs, 3.2% of eyes with AcrySof Conclusion: Real-world data for AcrySof and Tecnis IOLs revealed lower Nd:YAG rates and longer time to PCO diagnosis and Nd:YAG after monofocal versus diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF implantation. Nd:YAG rates were significantly lower with AcrySof versus Tecnis IOLs.
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.