Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37256375›Full record

Trial reportGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2023

Clinical outcomes with an aspheric monofocal and a new enhanced monofocal intraocular lens with modified optical profile.

Oege Goslings, Henk Veraart, Janny van de Laar-Muskens, David P Piñero

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Oege GoslingsDepartment of Ophthalmology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Henk VeraartDepartment of Ophthalmology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Janny van de Laar-MuskensDepartment of Ophthalmology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
David P PiñeroDepartment of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Crta San Vicente del Raspeig S/N 03016, San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain. david.pinyero@ua.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1546-4807
Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity of Alicante · ES

Funding

Johnson and Johnson Unrestricted grantMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad RYC-2016-20471
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes obtained after cataract surgery with an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and an enhanced IOL with a modified optical profile.

methodsRandomised clinical trial enrolling 70 patients (age, 52-87 years) undergoing cataract surgery. Two groups were created according to the type of IOL implanted: Vivinex iSert from Hoya Surgical Optics (Vivinex group, 35 patients) and Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 from Johnson & Johnson Vision (Eyhance group, 35 patients). Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), refraction, and self-perceived visual function (Catquest-9SF) were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up.

resultsNo significant differences were found between IOL groups in UDVA and CDVA (p ≥ 0.093). In contrast, monocular and binocular UIVA and DCIVA were significantly better in the Eyhance group at 1 (p ≤ 0.015) and 3 months postoperatively (p ≤ 0.002). Postoperative DCIVA 20/25 or better was obtained in 71.4% and 20.0% of patients in Eyhance and Vivinex groups, respectively. Differences in postoperative Rasch calibrated Catquest scores between Eyhance and Vivinex groups did not reach statistical significance (p ≥ 0.102). However, significant correlations were only found between the change in UIVA and Catquest scores (0.364 ≤ r ≤ 0.444, p ≤ 0.041) in the Eyhance group.

conclusionsThe modified monofocal IOL evaluated provides better intermediate visual function in comparison with a standard aspheric monofocal IOL, but the impact of this benefit on the self-perceived level of vision achieved after surgery according to the patient seemed to be limited.

Indexed as

CataractLenses, IntraocularPhacoemulsificationAgedAged, 80 and overContrast SensitivityHumansLens Implantation, IntraocularMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProsthesis DesignRefraction, OcularVisual AcuityCataract surgeryCatquest-9SFDepth of focusMonofocal IOLPatient-reported outcomesTecnis Eyhance

Identifiers

PMID37256375
PMCPMC10368552
OpenAlexW4378782151

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.