ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Comparison of clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (AT LISA, Eyecryl SERT trifocal) versus extended depth of focus intraocular lens (Eyhance, Eyecryl SERT EDOF).
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Pooled it
- Expanding visual horizons: comparative outcomes of bilateral implantation of an extended depth-of-focus versus enhanced and standard monofocal intraocular lenses.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Visual outcomes in patients with bilateral early to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma following wavefront-shaping partial-range of field-extend intraocular lens implantation.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Halo Measurements in Simulated Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual quality between the refractive-diffractive hybrid bifocal EDOF and the refractive-diffractive hybrid trifocal IOL.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Real-World Visual and Refractive Results of Two Different Presbyopia Correcting Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Postoperative Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Trifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses in Patients with Different Biometric Characteristics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Systematic bibliometric analysis of research hotspots and trends on the application of premium IOLs in the past 2 decades.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a New Enhanced Monofocal IOL and a Conventional Monofocal IOL.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Positioning of enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses between conventional monofocal and extended depth of focus lenses: a scoping review.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Erratum: Comparison of clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (AT LISA, Eyecryl SERT trifocal) versus extended depth of focus intraocular lens (Eyhance, Eyecryl SERT EDOF).Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare four different types of intra ocular lenses (IOLs), namely, AT LISA, Eyecryl SERT trifocal, Eyhance, Eyecryl SERT extended depth of focus (EDOF) with respect to their clinical outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study in which patients who underwent surgery and one of the four types of IOL were implanted. Postoperative evaluation was recorded at one month, postoperatively. The monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (6 m), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) (60 cm), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (CIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) (40 cm), and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) were assessed postoperatively on post operative day 30, for all four IOL groups. Defocus curve and contrast sensitivity were also compared. Results: With regards to UDVA and CDVA, P value was not statistically significant. (P = 0.534 and 0.421, respectively). EDOF group of IOLs had statistically significant better UIVA and CIVA than trifocal IOL group. (P < 0.001, 0.012, <0.001) and EDOF group had statistically significant worse P value pertaining to UNVA and CNVA (P < 0.001, 0.070, <0.001, 0.190). Pertaining to contrast sensitivity, EDOF group had better contrast sensitivity than Trifocal IOL group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: All four IOLs compared in this study had good comparable distant visual acuity. Near visual acuity was better with AT LISA and Eyecryl SERT trifocal IOL while intermediate vision was better with Eyhance and Eyecryl SERT EDOF IOL. Contrast sensitivity was better in EDOF IOLs than in both trifocal 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.