Hydrophobic versus hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses within public sector based on the type of funding contacts: the debate continues.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Ophthalmology Database study of cataract surgery: report 20, the hidden cost of intraocular lens choices for National Health Service funded cataract surgery in England.Eye (London, England) · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Ophthalmology Database study of cataract surgery: report 16, influence of remuneration model on choice of intraocular lens in the UK.2023

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as