ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Three-Dimensional Heads-Up vs. Standard Operating Microscope for Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing microscope light-associated glare and comfort between heads-up 3D digital and conventional microscopes in cataract surgery: a randomised, multicentre, single-blind, controlled trial.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Trial
- Teaching ophthalmic microsurgical skills: conventional microscopy versus heads-up visualization.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Advances in cataract surgery: is a new era on the horizon?Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Comparison of three-dimensional surgical system versus binocular microscope for implantable Collamer lens implantation: a randomized clinical trial.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Color-Contrast Adjustment With a 3D Head-Up System to Aid Capsulorhexis After ICG Staining: Single-Patient Case Report From a Tertiary Center.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2026Article
- Symptomatic Vitreous Opacities: Exploring the Mismatch between Clinical Observation of Vitreous Alterations and Self-Reported Symptoms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of three-dimensional heads-up system versus traditional microscopic system in medical education for vitreoretinal surgeries: a prospective study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Utility of real-time 3D visualization system in the early stage of phacoemulsification training.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty and Descemet Stripping Only Using a 3D Visualization System.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surgical time duration, the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and the incidence rate of intraoperative complications, alongside the vision and posturing parameters, were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the three-dimensional (3D) heads-up visualization system (HUVS) and standard operating microscope (SOM) in cataract surgery.
methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus on 26 June 2022. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to present postoperative BCVA and the mean surgical time duration, whereas the risk ratio (RR) was used to present the incidence rate of intraoperative complications. Publication bias was evaluated with Egger's test. The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for randomized clinical trials, the methodological index for non-randomized, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias. The research has been registered with the PROSPERO database (identifier, CRD42022339186).
resultsIn the meta-analysis of five studies with 1021 participants, the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of the postoperative BCVA showed no significant difference between patients who underwent HUVS versus SOM cataract surgery (WMD = -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.01 -0.02). In the meta-analysis of nine studies with 5505 participants, the pooled WMD of mean surgical time duration revealed no significant difference between patients who underwent HUVS versus SOM cataract surgery (WMD = 0.17, 95% CI: -0.43-0.76). In the meta-analysis of nine studies with 8609 participants, the pooled risk RR associated with intraoperative complications was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.01).
conclusions3D HUVS and SOM provide comparable surgical time duration, postoperative BCVA, and incidence rate of intraoperative complications.
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.