ArticleSaudi medical journal2023
Comparison of postoperative visual performance between trifocal intraocular lens and monofocal intraocular lens.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of perceptual training on visual quality in cataract patients with neural adaptation failure after multifocal intraocular lens implantation.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparison of microperimetry outcomes in monofocal and trifocal intraocular lens recipients.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Visual outcomes of cataract surgery using multifocal intraocular lenses in young adults with developmental vs. nondevelopmental cataracts.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Thermo-sensitive Poloxamer based antibacterial anti-inflammatory and photothermal conductive multifunctional hydrogel as injectable, in situ curable and adjustable intraocular lens.Bioactive materials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the subjective and objective visual quality more comprehensively after surgery of the commonly used multifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) and monolocal IOL implants through long-term systematic clinical observation, providing reference and basis for clinical application.
methodsNon-randomized controlled trial. A total of 91 (138 eyes) patients between June 2020 and December 2020 were implanted trifocal IOL or monofocal IOL after phacoemulsification in a tertiary class hospital in Wuhan. Monocular testing 3 months after surgery included best-spectacles corrected and uncorrected visual at distant, intermediate, and near vision; spherical equivalent (SE); defocus curve; modulation transfer function (MTF); dysfunctional lens index (DLI); Strehl ratio (SR); mesopic contrast sensitivity function; quality-of-life, spectacles independence, visual disturbance, and surgical satisfaction surveys 3 months post-surgery.
resultsThere was statistically better uncorrected vision acuity with trifocal IOLs in all range, while monofocal IOL had statistically better mesopic contrast sensitivity at specific spatial frequencies and statistically worse defocus curves, spectacles independence, and surgical satisfaction. The trifocal IOL performed better in subjective quality of vision and life and spectacles independence questionnaires, and the objective quality of vision had no statistical significance.
conclusionCompared to monofocal IOL, trifocal IOL could provide a full range of clear vision for the majority of patients with simple cataracts, improve the rate of spectacles independence and patient satisfaction. And the objective quality of vision did not show any difference.
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.