ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Comparison of two digital alignment systems for toric intraocular lens implantation.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05220683 (Comparing Two Digital Marking Systems), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Comparing Two Digital Marking Systems
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative accuracy of image-guided systems and smartphone applications for enhanced monofocal toric IOL alignment in cataract surgery.International ophthalmology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the two most used digital alignment systems regarding precision, repeatability and loss of track.
methods15 eyes of 15 patients older than 21 years with cataracts were included in this prospective study. The two systems were intraoperatively superimposed and recorded, and the alignment of the two displayed alignment axes was analysed regarding precision, repeatability and loss of track.
resultsThere was a significant difference in precision and repeatability between the two digital alignment systems regarding the projected alignment axis. The deviation from the actual target axis was significantly different, with a mean of 0.34°±0.75° for the Zeiss system and 1.60°±1.08° for the Alcon system (p=0.03, n=14). The within-subject SD was significantly lower with 0.21° for the Zeiss system and 0.34° for the Alcon system (p=0.03, n=14).
conclusionsThe Zeiss Callisto system showed a significantly lower deviation from the target axis, higher stability with eye movements and less need for microscope illumination than the Alcon system. Both systems showed high precision when compared with manual marking methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05220683.
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.