ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Difference in Quality of Vision Outcome among Extended Depth of Focus, Bifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lens Implantation.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- Outcomes of mini-monovision with monofocal, enhanced monofocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- A comparative study and review of visual outcomes with enhanced versus standard monofocal intraocular lenses following cataract surgery.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the postoperative quality of vision among patients who received extended depth of focus (EDOF), bifocal, and monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. A retrospective study was conducted, and 87 patients who underwent cataract surgery were enrolled. Patients were categorized into different groups according to IOL design, with 24, 29, and 34 individuals constituting bifocal, EDOF, and monofocal groups. Preoperative and postoperative visual acuity (VA), biometry data, refractive status, contrast sensitivity (CS), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and a quality of vision questionnaire that consisted of 11 questions were obtained 1 month postoperatively. The Kruskal−Wallis test and Pearson’s chi-square test were applied for statistical analyses. The postoperative CDVA was better in the EDOF group than in the bifocal group (p = 0.043), and the residual cylinder was lower in the EDOF groups than in the other two groups (both p < 0.05). The CS was worse in the EDOF group than in the other two groups (all p < 0.05), while the spherical aberration and trefoil were lower in the EDOF group than in the bifocal group (both p < 0.05). In terms of the quality of vision, the scores were better in the monofocal group than in the EDOF group in seven items (all p < 0.05), and the quality of vision in the bifocal group was better than in the EDOF group in small print reading (p = 0.042). In addition, the incidence of glare was lower in the monofocal group than in the other two groups (p < 0.001), while the spectacle dependence ratio was significantly higher in the monofocal group compared to the other two groups (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the general quality of vision was better in the monofocal group compared to the bifocal and EDOF groups, while the spectacle dependence ratio was significantly higher in the monofocal group than in the other two groups.
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.