Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35864161›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2023

Clinical outcomes of presbyopia correction with the latest techniques of presbyLASIK: a systematic review.

Joaquin Fernández, Ainhoa Molina-Martín, Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada, Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo, David P Piñero

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Surgical interventions for presbyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  3. The Science of Pseudoaccommodation and Its Therapeutic Potential.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

5 authors.

Joaquin FernándezDepartment of Ophthalmology (Qvision), VITHAS Hospital, Almería, Spain.
Ainhoa Molina-MartínDepartment of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.
Carlos Rocha-de-LossadaDepartment of Ophthalmology (Qvision), VITHAS Hospital, Almería, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7464-2493
Manuel Rodríguez-VallejoDepartment of Ophthalmology (Qvision), VITHAS Hospital, Almería, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5466-875X
David P PiñeroDepartment of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain. david.pinyero@ua.es.ORCID 0000-0002-1546-4807

Funding

Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness) RYC-2016-20471
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to collect the scientific literature on the correction of presbyopia with laser in situ keratomileusis (presbyLASIK) in last years and to analyse the quality of such scientific evidence using a validated methodology for conducting a systematic review. A total of 42 articles were initially identified, but after applying the selection criteria and an additional manual search a total of 23 articles were finally included: 2 non-randomized controlled clinical trials (NRCT) and 21 case series. Quality assessment of NRCTs and case series was performed with the ROBINS-I and the 20-criterion quality appraisal checklist defined by Moga et al. (IHE Publ 2012), respectively. For NRCT, the risk of bias was moderate in one study and serious in the other NRCT, being the main sources of risk, the domains related to confounding, selection of participants and measurement of outcomes. For case series studies, the main source of risk of bias was subjects not entering the study at the same point of the conditions (different levels of presbyopia). Likewise, a significant level of uncertainty was detected for the following items: consecutive recruitment of patients, blinding of outcome assessors to the intervention that the patient received, and conclusions of the study not supported by the results. Research on presbyLASIK to this date is mainly focused on case series generating a limited level of scientific evidence. The two NRCTs identified only demonstrated the potential benefit of combining the multiaspheric profile with some level of monovision in the non-dominant eye.

Indexed as

Keratomileusis, Laser In SituPresbyopiaHumans

Identifiers

PMID35864161
PMCPMC9998429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.