Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38114735›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Fourier tools for the evaluation of refractive multifocal designs.

Pablo De Gracia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Three-year myopia management efficacy of extended depth of focus soft contact lenses (MYLO) in Caucasian children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  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

1 author.

Pablo De GraciaSchool of Optometry, University of Detroit Mercy, Novi, 48377, MI, USA. degracpa@udmercy.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4319-2797

Funding

Bausch and Lomb Private Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents innovative tools and methodologies for the theoretical assessment of optical properties in refractive multifocal designs. Utilizing lens segmentation techniques and classical Fourier optics, these tools can be of help evaluating multifocal contact lenses, intraocular lenses, small aperture designs, and corneal inlays. As an example of their utility, this study presents the through-focus Visual Strehl ratios in the frequency domain of 12 multifocal contact lenses from four companies, derived from the sagittal power profiles obtained with a NIMO equipment (LAMBDA-X) for three base prescriptions (- 6.00 D, - 3.00 D, and + 1.00 D). The contact lenses are also assessed alongside higher-order aberrations obtained from 65 eyes, measured using a Wavefront Sciences Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System (AMO). Diameter variations, corresponding to individual pupil sizes (2.45-6.27 mm), were considered in the evaluation. These novel tools enable the theoretical evaluation of multifocal solutions without the need for prototypes. In the case examples presented, they differentiate between lenses tailored for different presbyopic age groups, offer guidance on optimizing hyperfocal distance in contact lens design, and underscore the relevance of the effective aperture effect. Notably, this paper introduces the pioneering conversion of sagittal powers of multifocal solutions into an equivalent wavefront and optical quality metric, with potential applications in myopia control assessments. The author hopes that readers recognize and utilize these tools to advance the field of refractive multifocality.

Indexed as

Contact LensesLenses, IntraocularRefraction, OcularVision, OcularVision Tests

Identifiers

PMID38114735
PMCPMC10730910

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.