ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Pitfalls of Using NIR-Based Clinical Instruments to Test Eyes Implanted with Diffractive Intraocular Lenses.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shedding Light on Halos: Quantifying the Impact of the Diffractive Profile in Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Based on the Point Spread Function: Optical Performance and Halo Formation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Limitations of OTF-based metrics for predicting through-focus visual acuity in pseudophakic eyes.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Assessment of Diffractive Intraocular Lenses Using Near-Infrared Light: A Critical Evaluation.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- [Optical benchtop evaluation of special intraocular lens optics].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Visual, Refractive and Aberrometric Outcome with the Use of 2 Intraocular Refractive Segment Multifocal Lenses.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The strong wavelength dependency of diffractive elements casts reasonable doubts on the reliability of near-infrared- (NIR)-based clinical instruments, such as aberrometers and double-pass systems, for assessing, post-surgery, the visual quality of eyes implanted with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (DMIOLs). The results obtained for such patients when using NIR light can be misleading. Ordinary compensation for the refractive error bound to chromatic aberration is not enough because it only considers the best focus shift but does not take into account the distribution of light energy among the foci which strongly depends on the wavelength-dependent energy efficiency of the diffractive orders used in the DMIOL design. In this paper, we consider three commercial DMIOL designs with the far focus falling within the range of (-1, 0, +1)-diffractive orders. We prove theoretically the differences existing in the physical performance of the studied lenses when using either the design wavelength in the visible spectrum or a NIR wavelength (780 to 850 nm). Based on numerical simulation and on-bench experimental results, we show that such differences cannot be neglected and may affect all the foci of a DMIOL, including the far focus.
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.