Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37568418›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Enhancing Intermediate Vision in Patients Affected by Epiretinal Membrane Treated by Phaco-Vitrectomy.

Fabrizio Giansanti, Francesco Dragotto, Cristina Nicolosi, Ludovica Alonzo, Lorenzo Cifarelli, Fabrizio Gaetano Saverio Franco, Lorenzo Vannozzi, Giacomo Abbruzzese, Daniela Bacherini, Gianni Virgili

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Presbyopia Correction in Lens Replacement Surgery: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fabrizio GiansantiDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.
Francesco DragottoDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1753-1097
Cristina NicolosiDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7384-3717
Ludovica AlonzoDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.
Lorenzo CifarelliDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3825-8296
Fabrizio Gaetano Saverio FrancoDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.
Lorenzo VannozziDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.
Giacomo AbbruzzeseDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.
Daniela BacheriniDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7578-7563
Gianni VirgiliDepartment of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, AOU Careggi, 50121 Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this research was to see if a refractive enhanced monofocal IOL (Eyhance IOL, IOL Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Ana, CA, USA) can provide better intermediate vision in patients undergoing phaco-vitrectomy due to cataract and epiretinal macular membrane (ERM).

methodsA nonrandomized prospective observational comparative study enrolled patients affected by cataract and ERM undergoing phaco-vitrectomy. A follow up of 6 months was established. Corrected and uncorrected visual acuity of both monocular and binocular types were assessed regarding intermediate and far distances. The CATQUEST 9-SF questionnaire was administered preoperatively and at the last follow-up.

resultsTwenty-three eyes of twenty-three patients were enrolled, with 11 in the enhanced monofocal group. The uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity after 6 months was not statistically different. Both monocular and binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity after 6 months were higher in the enhanced monofocal group (

conclusionsThis refractive enhanced monofocal IOL can provide better intermediate vision compared to a standard monofocal IOL in patients undergoing phaco-vitrectomy due to cataracts and ERM. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Indexed as

cataractenhanced monofocalERMIOLpresbyopia correction

Identifiers

PMID37568418
PMCPMC10420151
OpenAlexW4385423725

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.