Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37734409›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine2023

Comparison of binocular visual quality in six treatment protocols for bilateral cataract surgery with presbyopia correction: a prospective two-center single-blinded cohort study.

Qianqian Lan, Fan Xu, Tong Sun, Siming Zeng, Yiyun Liu, Tingting Yang, Yaxin Li, Gang Yao, Baikai Ma, Liyuan Tao and 4 more

Abstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors.

Qianqian LanBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8917-6659
Fan XuGuangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and Department of Ophthalmology, The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Key Laboratory of Eye Health and Guangxi Health Commission Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Related Systemic Diseases Artificial Intelligence Screening Technology (The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), Institute of Ophthalmic Diseases, Nanning, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1504-2356
Tong SunBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Siming ZengGuangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and Department of Ophthalmology, The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Key Laboratory of Eye Health and Guangxi Health Commission Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Related Systemic Diseases Artificial Intelligence Screening Technology (The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), Institute of Ophthalmic Diseases, Nanning, China.
Yiyun LiuBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Tingting YangBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yaxin LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Gang YaoGuangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and Department of Ophthalmology, The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Key Laboratory of Eye Health and Guangxi Health Commission Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Related Systemic Diseases Artificial Intelligence Screening Technology (The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), Institute of Ophthalmic Diseases, Nanning, China.
Baikai MaBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Liyuan TaoResearch Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Boping MaBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xin XiaoGuangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and Department of Ophthalmology, The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Key Laboratory of Eye Health and Guangxi Health Commission Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Related Systemic Diseases Artificial Intelligence Screening Technology (The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), Institute of Ophthalmic Diseases, Nanning, China.
Min LiGuangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and Department of Ophthalmology, The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Key Laboratory of Eye Health and Guangxi Health Commission Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Related Systemic Diseases Artificial Intelligence Screening Technology (The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), Institute of Ophthalmic Diseases, Nanning, China.
Hong QiBeijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3066-8020

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the postoperative binocular visual quality in six treatment protocols for bilateral age-related cataract surgery with presbyopia correction for clinical decisions. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this prospective two-center single-blinded cohort study, participants from North or South China who underwent bilateral phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation were divided into six protocols: monovision, diffractive bifocal, mixed, refractive bifocal, trifocal, and micro-monovision extended range of vision (EROV). Binocular visual quality was evaluated at 3 months postoperatively, including binocular uncorrected full-range visual acuity, binocular defocus curves (depth of focus [DoF] and area under the curve [AUC]), binocular visual function (fusion function and stereopsis), binocular subjective spectacle independence rates, visual analog scale (VAS) of overall satisfaction, 25-item visual function questionnaire (VFQ-25), and binocular dysphotopsia symptoms.

resultsOf the 300 enrolled patients, 272 (90.7%; 544 eyes) were analyzed. The trifocal protocol showed excellent binocular full-range visual acuity and the best performance for most DoFs and AUCs. The monovision protocol presented the worst binocular visual quality in most perspectives, especially in convergence, distance, and near stereopsis (

conclusionsThe trifocal protocol showed the best performance, and the monovision protocol presented the worst performance in most perspectives of binocular visual quality for presbyopia correction. The refractive bifocal, mixed, or EROV protocols can provide an approximate performance as a trifocal protocol. Ophthalmologists can customize therapies using different protocols.

Indexed as

CataractCataract ExtractionPresbyopiaClinical ProtocolsHumansProspective Studiesbinocular visual qualitydepth of focusPresbyopia correctionrefractive cataract surgerythe area under the curve

Identifiers

PMID37734409
PMCPMC10515669

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.