ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Comparison of the Clinical Effectiveness of Correcting Different Types of Astigmatism with Small Incision Lenticule Extraction.
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. It is linked to trial NCT06477081 (Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction (KLEx) Versus Femtosecond Laser-assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for the Treatment of Myopia and Compound Myopic Astigmatism
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corneal higher-order aberrations following small incision lenticule extraction for high myopic astigmatism correction.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few studies have reported the differential outcomes of Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) on myopic astigmatism. Given this, we examined the effectiveness of SMILE for up to one year, comparing with-the-rule (WTR), against-the-rule (ATR), and oblique astigmatism, conducting a retrospective review of patients who underwent correction of myopic astigmatism using the 500-kHz VisuMax femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec) at two refractive clinics in Poland between 2016-2017. Patients were aged ≥21 with stable refractive errors between -0.5 and -10.0 diopter (D) with astigmatism up to 5D. The mean age of the 209 patients (355 eyes) available was 32 years; 58.4% were female. Of these, 247 had WTR, 62 oblique, and 46 ATR astigmatism. The mean pre-operative spherical equivalent (SE) was -5.4 ± 2.57D and the cylinder -1.7 ± 1.0D. The mean SE for WTR reduced from -5.60 ± 2.37D to -0.31 ± 0.67D at 2 months and -0.38 ± 0.70D at 12 months; the mean cylinder improved from -1.90 ± 1.10D to -0.31 ± 0.39D and -0.36 ± 0.43D, respectively. Eyes with oblique astigmatism also improved from a mean SE of -5.8 ± 3.4 D to -0.82 ± 1.50D and -0.69 ± 1.15D and a cylinder of -1.4 ± 0.73D to -0.17 ± 0.33D at 2 months and -0.1 ± 0.32D at 12. For ATR, the mean SE improved from -4.0 ± 1.8D to -0.08 ± 0.22D and -0.04 ± 0.12D; and the mean cylinder from -1.25 ± 0.53 to -0.02 ± 0.09D -0.08 ± 0.21D at 2 and 12 months, respectively. There were statistically significant improvements in SE, manifest sphere and cylinder refraction, and UDVA and CDVA scores for each cylinder type at 2 months with ATR cylinders having better outcomes. Although missing data limited interpretation at one year, differences were maintained. The magnitude of error calculations suggests that WTR was more prone to under-correction, particularly for high astigmatism (>1.5D). SMILE for myopic astigmatism reliably corrects SE, irrespective of the subtype of astigmatism.
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.