Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2023
A prospective, randomized, comparative clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of different hydrophobic aspheric monofocal intraocular lenses.
Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To report the 1-year clinical outcomes related to safety, efficacy, predictability, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction, complications, and overall results with Optiflex Genesis and Eyecryl Plus (ASHFY 600) monofocal aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs) and compare the same with Tecnis-1 monofocal IOL. Methods: This prospective, single-center, single-surgeon, randomized, three-arm study included 159 eyes of 140 eligible patients who underwent cataract extraction with IOL implantation with any of the three study lenses. Clinical outcomes related to safety, efficacy, predictability, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction, complications, and overall results were compared at a mean follow-up of 1 year (12 ± 1.20 months). Results: Preoperatively, age and baseline ocular parameters of all the three groups were matched. At 12 months post-op, no significant differences were noted among the groups in terms of mean postoperative uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, respectively) sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent (SE; P > 0.05 for all parameters). Eighty-nine percent eyes in the Optiflex Genesis group as against 96% eyes in the Tecnis-1 and Eyecryl Plus (ASHFY 600) groups were within ± 0.5 D, and 100% of eyes in all the three groups were within ± 1.00 D of SE accuracy. Postoperative internal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and coma, and mesopic contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies were comparable across all the three groups. Two eyes in the Tecnis-1 group, two eyes in the Optiflex group, and one eye in the Eyecryl Plus (ASHFY 600) group underwent YAG capsulotomy at the last follow-up. No eye in any of the groups showed glistenings or required IOL exchange due to any reason. Conclusion: At 1-year post-op, all the three aspheric lenses showed comparable results in visual and refractive parameters, post-op aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and posterior capsule opacification (PCO) behavior. Further follow-up is needed to evaluate the long-term behavior for refractive stability and PCO rates of these lenses. Trial registry: CTRI/2019/08/020754 (www.ctri.nic.in).
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.