Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2024
Comparatively analysing the postoperative optical performance of different intraocular lenses: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of visual quality after implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lens Diff - aA in cataract patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Association between systemic immune-inflammation index and postoperative optical quality in the early recovery phase after cataract surgery: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative performance, including best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and optical metrics (from the OQAS and iTrace devices), was compared among 4 different intraocular lenses (IOLs).
methodsThis prospective observational study included 104 eyes from 104 subjects who underwent cataract surgery combined with implantation of 4 different IOLs: monofocal (Mon) IOLs, segmental refractive (SegRef) IOLs, diffractive (Dif) IOLs and extended depth of focus (EDoF) IOLs. Postoperative BCDVA and optical metrics were collected at the 6th month. The OQAS optical metrics included the objective scattering index (OSI), Strehl ratio (SR), modulation transfer function (MTF) cut-off frequency, and predicted visual acuity (PVA); the iTrace optical metrics included blur/double vision, glare/halo, starburst, mixed focus, night myopia, and night hyperopia.
resultsThere was no significant difference in BCDVA among the 4 groups (P = 0.059; power = 70.3%). Differences were observed in all OQAS optical metrics among the groups (all P < 0.001). Overall, Mon IOLs and EDoF IOLs exhibited better performance than Dif IOLs and SegRef IOLs. Starburst was the only iTrace optical metric that differed among the groups (P < 0.001): SegRef IOLs caused more starbursts than Mon IOLs (P = 0.001), Dif IOLs (P = 0.006) and EDoF IOLs (P < 0.001). Spearman rank correlation analysis was used to determine the relationships among the iTrace optical metrics, OQAS optical metrics and BCDVA: starburst was negatively correlated with BCDVA, PVA at contrasts of 100% and 20%, OSI, and MTF cut-off frequency (all P ≤ 0.001); mixed focus was positively correlated with BCDVA, PVA at contrasts of 100% and 20%, OSI, and MTF cut-off frequency (all P ≤ 0.001).
conclusionsPostoperative BCDVA and optical metrics varied among the different IOLs, which should be taken into account in the selection and management of IOLs for cataract patients.
trial registrationThis study was approved by the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University Ethical Review Board (No. 50 2022).
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.