Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38407686›Full record

Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2024

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens: a single-masked prospective randomized study.

Rosa Giglio, Alex Lucia Vinciguerra, Marianna Presotto, Kamil Jonak, Robert Rejdak, Mario Damiano Toro, Mayank Ambarish Nanavaty, Daniele Tognetto

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Science of Pseudoaccommodation and Its Therapeutic Potential.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Rosa GiglioDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Ospedale Maggiore, Piazza Ospedale 1, 34129, Trieste, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy.
Alex Lucia VinciguerraDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Ospedale Maggiore, Piazza Ospedale 1, 34129, Trieste, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy. alexluciavinciguerra@libero.it.
Marianna PresottoDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Ospedale Maggiore, Piazza Ospedale 1, 34129, Trieste, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy.
Kamil JonakDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lublin University of Technology, 20-618, Lublin, Poland.
Robert RejdakDepartment of General and Pediatric Ophthalmology, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093, Lublin, Poland.
Mario Damiano ToroDepartment of General and Pediatric Ophthalmology, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093, Lublin, Poland.
Mayank Ambarish NanavatySussex Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Brighton NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK.
Daniele TognettoDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Ospedale Maggiore, Piazza Ospedale 1, 34129, Trieste, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate and compare the visual outcomes of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) with two different monofocal IOLs.

settingEye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.

designProspective, single-center, single-masked, randomized controlled clinical study.

methodsThe study included patients undergoing phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. Patients were consecutively randomized by block randomization and assigned in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio to three study arms to bilaterally receive Tecnis Eyhance™ (model ICB00) or Tecnis

resultsNinety patients (30 for each group) were enrolled. At 3 months follow-up, statistically significant differences for intermediate visual acuities were found between the three groups. Nonstatistically significant differences were observed for distance visual acuities and the changes in Catquest-9SF scores.

conclusionTecnis Eyhance™ provided better results in intermediate visual outcomes without adverse effects on patients' quality of life.

Indexed as

Lenses, IntraocularPatient SatisfactionEye, ArtificialHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeCataract surgeryEnhanced monofocal IOLIntermediate visionSpectacle independence

Identifiers

PMID38407686
PMCPMC10896881

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.