ArticleScientific reports2024
Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantations of three types of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses that have undergone corneal refractive surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Premium Intraocular Lens Implantation After Laser Vision Correction: An Updated Narrative Review of Biometry, IOL Selection, Visual Outcomes, and Clinical Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of the LASIK Nonlinear Aspheric Micro-Monovision Surgery (Laser Blended Vision Surgery) in Correcting Presbyopia Among the Saudi Population.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual quality between the refractive-diffractive hybrid bifocal EDOF and the refractive-diffractive hybrid trifocal IOL.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual quality after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses with different diopter values in the two eyes: a retrospective study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Observational
- Presbyopia Correction in Lens Replacement Surgery: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This prospective, non-randomized, comparative study aimed to compare the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantations of three presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) after myopic refractive surgery. It was conducted from January 2020 to December 2021 in Shanghai Heping Eye Hospital. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of IOL implanted. The visual acuity, refractive stability, high-order aberrations, objective visual quality, spectacle independence, and visual function index 14 questionnaire scores of the three groups were compared. This study included 78 eyes of 39 patients: 26 eyes with 839MP, 26 eyes with MF30, and 26 eyes with ZXR00. Uncorrected distance visual acuity improved significantly for all three groups. For a pupil diameter of 4.0 mm, the spherical aberrations of the three groups were 0.33 ± 0.16 μ, 0.50 ± 0.08 μ, and 0.39 ± 0.10 μ, respectively. The spectacle independence for distance vision was over 90% in each group; for near vision, it was only 25% for the ZXR00 group. All three types of presbyopia-correcting IOLs improved visual quality in post-LASIK or PRK patients. However, the high incidence of photic phenomena after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation in patients who have undergone myopic LASIK should not be neglected.
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.