ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Systematic review for the development of a core outcome set for monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the study was to define a core outcome set (COS) to be measured following cataract surgery for the postoperative evaluation of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Compared to current COSs, the present work provides updates considering the advances in the technology due to the development of new generation monofocal IOLs, which are characterized by a safety profile comparable to standard monofocal IOLs but with an extended range of intermediate vision. Methods: Healthcare professionals (ophthalmologist surgeons) and patients were involved in the selection of outcomes to be included in the COS, starting from a list of indicators retrieved from a systematic literature search. The search considered observational studies with both a retrospective or prospective design, case studies and classic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A mixed methodology integrating a Delphi-driven and an expert panel approach was adopted to reach an agreement among clinicians, while patients were involved in the completion of a questionnaire. Results: The final COS included 15 outcomes. Eleven outcomes, all clinical, were considered for inclusion after a joint discussion among ophthalmologists; seven outcomes were linked to visual acuity, while the remaining to contrast sensitivity, refractive errors, aberrations and adverse events. Measurement metrics, method of aggregation and measurement time point of these outcomes were specified. The most important aspects for the patients were (1) quality of life after cataract surgery, (2) the capacity to perform activities requiring good near vision (e.g., reading), (3) spectacle independence, and (4) safety of movements without fear of getting hurt or falling (intermediate vision). Discussion: In a context with limited healthcare resources, it is important to optimize their use considering also the preferences of end-users, namely patients. The proposed COS, developed involving both ophthalmologists and patients, provides an instrument for the postoperative evaluation of different technologies in the context of monofocal IOLs, which can be used not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice to increase the body of real-world evidence.
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.