Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Prospective Randomized Single-Masked Study of Bilateral Isofocal Optic-Design or Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.
Trial report 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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-year comparison of two mix-and-match strategies: enhanced monofocal and trifocal vs enhanced monofocal and trifocal EDOF intraocular lenses.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Trial
- Visual Outcomes Three and Six Months After Bilateral Implantation of Extended Monofocal Isopure 1.2.3 Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative visual and refractive analysis of two enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The Science of Pseudoaccommodation and Its Therapeutic Potential.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Refining mini-monovision with monofocal plus intraocular lenses.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Advanced vs. Standard Monofocal IOLs: Optical Quality and Patient-Perceived Visual Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of a Multicenter Study Following Implantation of an Isofocal Optic IOL with Double C-Loop Haptics.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Visual and Refractive Outcomes After Implantation of an Isofocal Optic-Design Intraocular Lens with Double C-Loop Haptics in Japanese Eyes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Optical quality in vitro and in vivo of an extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens with isofocal design.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Visual Outcomes, Postoperative Angle Alpha, and Angle Kappa After Implantation of Isofocal Intraocular Lenses.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- The BVI ISOPUREFrontiers in ophthalmology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess refractive and visual outcomes of bilateral implantation of an isofocal optic-design intraocular lens (IOL) or a monofocal IOL following cataract surgery. Methods: A total of 127 patients were recruited into a prospective, single-masked, randomized trial. Sixty-five patients bilaterally implanted with the Isopure Isofocal IOL and 62 patients with the Micropure Monofocal IOL were followed for 4-6 months. Refraction, monocular and binocular uncorrected-distance-visual acuity, corrected-distance-visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected-intermediate-visual acuity and distance-corrected-intermediate-visual acuity (DCIVA, 66/80 cm), uncorrected-near-visual acuity, and distance-corrected-near-visual acuity (DCNVA, 40 cm) were evaluated. Binocular defocus curve, binocular contrast sensitivity (photopic, mesopic with/without glare), and glare and halo phenomena were also measured. Results: 99.23% of eyes were within ±1.00D and 84.62% of eyes within ±0.50D for the Isopure patients and 98.39% and 82.26% for the Micropure patients, respectively. The mean spherical-equivalent was -0.06 ± 0.36D and 0.10 ± 0.32D for the Isopure and Micropure patients, respectively. 98.5% and 100% of patients implanted with the Isopure and Micropure IOLs showed a cumulative binocular CDVA value ≥20/20, respectively. 80% and 67.70% of patients implanted with the Isopure presented a binocular DCIVA ≥20/25 at 80 and 66 cm, respectively. These percentages were 46.8% and 40.3% with the Micropure IOL, respectively. For Isopure, 7.7%, 30.8%, and 58.5% of patients presented a DCNVA ≥20/25, ≥20/32 and ≥20/40, respectively. These values were lower for the Micropure: 1.6%, 19.4% and 46.8%, respectively. Defocus curves showed similar good visual acuity at distance for both lenses with better intermediate vision for the Isopure. Both groups presented good contrast sensitivity, and the size and intensity of halo and glare phenomena were similar between the two. No adverse-events were reported. Conclusion: Our trial shows that both IOLs provide excellent visual acuity and contrast sensitivity for far vision with similar photic phenomena, and the Isopure IOL improved unaided intermediate vision performance.
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.