ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2024
Screening of positive dysphotopsia before multifocal intraocular lens implantation.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying the Role of Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration and Age in Night Vision Disturbances.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- An Evidence-Based Pathway from Functional Classification to Intraocular Lens Specialization: A Case Example Applying the PECO Framework.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Challenges in ophthalmic consultations and strategic communication.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- One-year outcomes after implantation of an EDOF intraocular lens in patients with cataract.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2025Observational
- Navigating the Lens Labyrinth: A Practical Approach to Intraocular Lens Classification and Selection.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of a Trifocal Versus an Extended Depth of Field Intraocular Lens in Chinese Patients With Cataract: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the photic phenomena (PP) and positive dysphotopsia in candidates for presbyopia or cataract surgery and to evaluate their relationship with cataract grading systems.
designRetrospective observational.
methodsMonocular data for 82 subjects measured during the preoperative screening were retrospectively retrieved from our database. The evaluated variables consisted of two methods for PP measurement: light distortion index (LDI) and parameters obtained from a simulator, both of which were combined with subjective bother related to PP. The cutoff for LDI that better predicted patients passing from slightly to moderately bothersome was estimated. The relationships between LDI and the following objective cataract grading methods were also assessed: objective scatter index (OSI), dysfunctional lens index (DLI), and Pentacam Nucleus Staging (PNS).
resultsLDI was the best method for measuring PP, which showed a significant correlation with the bothersome question (rho = 0.34, P = 0.002) and also with OSI (rho = 0.67, P < 0.0005), DLI (rho = -0.29, P = 0.007), and PNS (rho = 0.48, P < 0.0005). The number/percentage of patients who found it bothersome was as follows: "Not at all" (18/22%), "Slightly" (41/50%), "Moderately" (15/18.3%), and "Very" (8/9.7%). The cutoff value that predicted the transition from slightly to moderately bothersome was ≥15.20% according to LDI, which could be estimated with the following values for grading: ≥2.8 for OSI, ≤7.6 for DLI, and ≥2 for PNS.
conclusionsPatients reporting moderately or higher bothersome levels in the preoperative period and with LDI <15.20%, <2.8 for OSI, >7.6 for DLI, and <2 for PNS might deserve special attention in the multifocal intraocular lens selection.
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.