Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37189583›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Comparison of a Presbyopia-Correcting Supplementary Intraocular Lens Combination and a Capsular-Bag Lens: An In Vitro Study.

Ramin Khoramnia, Isabella Diana Baur, Weijia Yan, Grzegorz Łabuz, Gerd Uwe Auffarth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Polypseudophakia: from "Piggyback" to supplementary sulcus-fixated IOLs.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ramin KhoramniaDavid J. Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6237-7773
Isabella Diana BaurDavid J. Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5834-1359
Weijia YanDavid J. Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3069-3333
Grzegorz ŁabuzDavid J. Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Gerd Uwe AuffarthDavid J. Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6927-5251

Funding

1stQ GmbH n.a.Klaus Tschira Foundation n.a.Rahel Goitein-Straus-Program of the Faculty of Medicine of Heidelberg University n.a.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated the optical quality of two approaches to trifocality: polypseudophakia versus monopseudophakia. The combination (polypseudophakia) of a monofocal Basis Z B1AWY0 and AddOn Trifocal A4DW0M intraocular lens (IOL) was compared to using one Basis Z Trifocal B1EWYN IOL, all from 1stQ GmbH. In both approaches, we measured modulation transfer function (MTF) and Strehl Ratio (SR) values at 3.0 and 4.5 mm pupil sizes. We determined the through-focus (TF) MTF at 25, 50 and 100 lp/mm for the 3 mm aperture. United States Air Force (USAF) target images were recorded. MTF measurement of the trifocal lens and the combined monofocal and trifocal AddOn IOL showed good performance at the far and near focus for the 3 mm aperture. For the 4.5 mm aperture the MTF improved for the far focus but decreased for the intermediate and near focus. TF MTF showed better contrast at the far focus for the polypseudophakic setup but at the expense of the efficiency at the near focus. However, the USAF chart images revealed only minimal differences between both approaches. The optical quality of the polypseudophakic approach was not affected by the presence of two IOLs instead of one and proved to be comparable with the performance of one capsular-bag-fixated trifocal IOL. Differences between the single vs. two-lens approach seen in the TF MTF analysis could be attributed to the optical design that varied between the trifocal models.

Indexed as

optical qualitypolypseudophakiatrifocality

Identifiers

PMID37189583
PMCPMC10137998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.