ArticleScientific reports2022
Visual outcomes and subjective experience with three intraocular lenses based presbyopia correcting strategies in cataract patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of defocus curves of monofocal, enhanced monofocal and extended depth of focus IOLs.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus lenses and a blend approach of extended depth of focus lenses and bifocal lenses in cataract patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Trial
- Analysis of visual quality after implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lens Diff - aA in cataract patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Visual and refractive evaluation of two diffractive trifocal intraocular lens platforms with distant and near dominant light energy distributions.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Early Clinical Outcomes After the Mix-and-Match Approach of Trifocal and Non-Diffractive EDOF IOL.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- A comparative study of extended depth of focus, bifocal intraocular lenses and their mix-and-match.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Real-World Visual and Refractive Results of Two Different Presbyopia Correcting Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Implantation of trifocal intraocular lens in mild pathologic myopia: visual outcomes and influence of fundus structures.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Visual Disturbances with a Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Meta-Analysis.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Visual performance, safety, and patient satisfaction after binocular clear lens extraction and trifocal intraocular lens implantation in Chinese presbyopic patients.BMC ophthalmology · 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
- Agreement between Two Devices for Measuring Pupil Diameter in Patients Implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the visual outcomes and subjective experience of three intraocular lenses (IOL) implant strategies. Retrospective comparative study. This study comprised patients who underwent phacoemulsification and bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (ZXR00; EDOF group), blended implantation of EDOF and bifocal IOL (ZXR00/ZLB00; blended group), and bilateral implantation of trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP; trifocal group). The outcomes included visual acuity (VA), visual defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, quality of life, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction. Follow-up was performed 3 months after the surgery. This study included 114 eyes of 57 patients (20 in EDOF group; 16 in blended group; 21 in trifocal group). Patients in the three groups had high quality of life, patient satisfaction, and good contrast sensitivity. The EDOF group had the worst near VA, but the visual quality was the best. The blended group had good VA and slight photic disturbance. The trifocal group obtained the best whole range of VA, but the photic disturbance was significantly severe than the EDOF group. Both the blended and trifocal groups achieved high spectacle independence, but some patients in the EDOF group need spectacle when dealing with close-range tasks.
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.