ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
Positioning of enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses between conventional monofocal and extended depth of focus lenses: a scoping review.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of visual outcomes of enhanced monofocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Visual and patient-reported outcomes of an enhanced versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Monovision versus multifocality for presbyopia during primary phacoemulsification: systematic review and network meta-analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Comparing postoperative reading performance and visual outcomes of a non-diffractive EDOF-IOL versus a monofocal IOL: a randomized controlled eye movement study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Trial
- The patient reported intraocular lens questionnaire (PR-ILQ): content validity, psychometric performance, and use in a regulated clinical trial to evaluate safety and effectiveness outcomes.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Trial
- Accuracy of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons Online Calculator for Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2026Article
- Real-World Experience with Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses Following Cataract Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Case Series.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Contrast Sensitivity After Combined MIGS and Cataract Surgery: A Comparison of Monofocal and Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Realistic Visual Acuity and Patient Satisfaction After Simultaneous Bilateral Tecnis Eyhance DIB00 Monofocal Plus Lens Implantation During a 12-Month Follow-Up Period in a Single-Center Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- An Update on Intraocular Lens Technology for Presbyopia Correction and Visual Outcomes.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Visual and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of Two Enhanced Monofocal IOLs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Objective assessment of accommodation with an accommodative intraocular lens: Development of methodology and case report.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Article
- Comparative Photopic and Mesopic Visual Performance of Enhanced Monofocal Versus Non-Diffractive Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After Implantation of Enhanced Versus Standard Monofocal Intraocular Lenses With a Myopic Target Refraction: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The Science of Pseudoaccommodation and Its Therapeutic Potential.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Visual Outcomes with Enhanced Monofocal and Non-Diffractive Extended Depth-of-Field Intraocular Lenses.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- 12-month clinical outcomes of the Evolux™ extended monofocal intraocular lens following cataract surgery.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNew intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled.
methodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35-2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined.
resultsTwo systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR.
conclusionsAdditional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.
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.