Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37521152›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023

The Current Burden and Future Solutions for Preoperative Cataract-Refractive Evaluation Diagnostic Devices: A Modified Delphi Study.

Bonnie An Henderson, Jaime Aramberri, Robin Vann, Adi Abulafia, Margaret Ainslie-Garcia, John Berdahl, Nicole Ferko, Kjell Gunnar Gundersen, So Goto, Preeya Gupta and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Recent Advances in Refractive Surgery: An Overview.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
    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

17 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Bonnie An HendersonDepartment of Ophthalmology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Jaime AramberriOphthalmology Clinic Miranza Begitek, San Sebastian, Spain.
Robin VannDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8209-4746
Adi AbulafiaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hadassah Faculty of Medicine, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
Margaret Ainslie-GarciaEVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada.
John BerdahlVance Thompson Vision, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.
Nicole FerkoEVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada.
Kjell Gunnar GundersenIFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1003-0225
So GotoHerbert Wertheim School Optometry and Vision Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Preeya GuptaTriangle Eye Consultants, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0895-7870
Samuel MultackLaser and Cataract Institute, Frankfort, IL, USA.
Elizabeth PersaudEVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada.
Duna RaoofNVISION Eye Center, Newport Beach, CA, USA.
Giacomo SaviniIRCCS - G.B. Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy.
H John ShammasDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9307-5591
Li WangCullen Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Wendy Zhi WangEVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0005-5335-4472
EVERSANA (Canada) · CAAdvocate Trinity Hospital · USBaylor College of Medicine · USDuke University · USFondazione G.B. Bietti · ITNVision Eye Centers (United States) · USShaare Zedek Medical Center · ILTokyo Medical Center · JPTufts University · USTulane University · USUniversity of Southern California · USVance Thompson Vision · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To obtain consensus on the key areas of burden associated with existing devices and to understand the requirements for a comprehensive next-generation diagnostic device to be able to solve current challenges and provide more accurate prediction of intraocular lens (IOL) power and presbyopia correction IOL success. Patients and Methods: Thirteen expert refractive cataract surgeons including three steering committee (SC) members constituted the voting panel. Three rounds of voting included a Round 1 structured electronic questionnaire, Round 2 virtual face-to-face meeting, and Round 3 electronic questionnaire to obtain consensus on topics related to current limitations and future solutions for preoperative cataract-refractive diagnostic devices. Results: Forty statements reached consensus including current limitations (n = 17) and potential solutions (n = 23) associated with preoperative diagnostic devices. Consistent with existing evidence, the panel reported unmet needs in measurement accuracy and validation, IOL power prediction, workflow, training, and surgical planning. A device that facilitates more accurate corneal measurement, effective IOL power prediction formulas for atypical eyes, simplified staff training, and improved decision-making process for surgeons regarding IOL selection is expected to help alleviate current burdens. Conclusion: Using a modified Delphi process, consensus was achieved on key unmet needs of existing preoperative diagnostic devices and requirements for a comprehensive next-generation device to provide better objective and subjective outcomes for surgeons, technicians, and patients.

Indexed as

cataract surgeryIOL power predictionmeasurement accuracy and validationnext-generation diagnostic devicesurgical planning

Identifiers

PMID37521152
PMCPMC10378607
OpenAlexW4385221959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.