Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2023
Clinical outcomes in eyes with diffractive continuous depth-of-focus intraocular lenses enhanced for near vision: comparison with trifocal intraocular lenses.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subjective clinical visual disturbance scores correlation with simulated vehicle headlight halo in presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Quantifying glare phenomena in patients with different intraocular lenses using a standard and modified clinical straylight meter.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Visual performance and patient-reported outcomes of a non-apodized diffractive trifocal intraocular lens in Chinese cataract patients: a prospective multicenter real-world study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Early Clinical Results of a Newly Developed Continuous Range of Vision Intraocular Lens.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes with a new diffractive multifocal intraocular lens optimized by the dynamic light utilization algorithm.Eye (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Article
- Risk factors for photic phenomena in two different multifocal diffractive intraocular lenses.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction of Two Continuous Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Geometry of Modern Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses and Changes in Haptic-Capsular Bag Behavior According to Compression and Different Well Diameters: A Bench Study Using Computed Tomography.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- When trifocal IOLs disappoint: diagnostic and management pathway.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo prospectively evaluate visual functions and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of diffractive continuous depth-of-focus intraocular lens (CDF IOL) compared with trifocal IOLs.
methodsThis investigator-initiated study was approved by a certified local review board (registered: jRCTs032210305). CDF IOL (Synergy, J&J, group S) and trifocal IOL (AcrySof PanOptix, Alcon, group P) were implanted bilaterally in 30 patients each. Three months postoperatively, binocular outcomes of uncorrected (BUCVA) and distance-corrected (BDCVA) visual acuities at distances of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, and 5 m were measured. Contrast sensitivities were binocularly measured using CSV-1000 (2.5 m) and Pelli-Robson charts at distances of 0.4 and 1 m. Symptoms of glare, halo, starburst, and waxy vision, and satisfaction for near, intermediate, and far visions were assessed with questionnaires. Differences between the two groups were examined.
resultsTwenty-seven patients each completed the follow-up. The mean age of the group S was lower than that of the group P (P < 0.001). The BUCVA at 0.4 m was better in the S group, while the mean manifest refraction of the P group showed a significant hyperopic shift (P < 0.001). BDCVA was significantly better in the S group. The contrast sensitivity results at three distances showed no discernible differences. Although more patients in the S group reported significant glare and halo, their satisfaction with near vision was higher.
conclusionsThe binocular visual function of patients with CDF IOLs was comparable to or better than that of patients with trifocal IOLs. The patients were satisfied with near vision, despite the enhanced glare and halo. Understanding the differences between the two types of presbyopia-correcting IOLs is important to ensure patient satisfaction.
trial registrationThis clinical trial was registered in the Japan Registry for Clinical Research (identifier: jRCTs032210305) on September 13, 2021.
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.