ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Comparing clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens in patients with and without prior history of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens in patients with and without prior history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
methodsA retrospective study included patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery and PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) implantation. Patients were grouped: Group A for patients with history of LASIK and Group B for patients without history of LASIK. Postoperative outcome measures comprised distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity, manifest refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, patient satisfaction, and the rate of spectacle independence.
resultsA total of 288 eyes (144 patients) were included: 132 eyes in Group A and 156 eyes in Group B. At 6 months post-surgery, patients of both groups achieved a continuous satisfying visual acuity from 33 cm to distance. 73% of eyes in Group A and 75% of eyes in Group B were within ± 0.50 D of emmetropia (P > 0.05). The percentages of eyes within ± 1.00 D of emmetropia were 98% for Group A and 96% for Group B (P > 0.05). The total scores of satisfaction were 52.58 ± 3.46 for Group A and 53.23 ± 3.46 for Group B (P > 0.05). Most of patients (98% for Group A, 99% for Group B) were able to be spectacle independence for daily living. 53% of patients in Group A and 51% in Group B experiencd mild to moderate negative visual symptoms, which made it a little or moderate difficult to drive at night.
conclusionsCataract patients with and without history of LASIK could safely undergo implantation of the PanOptix IOLs, which results in precise refractive outcomes and satisfactory visual acuity. Although contrast sensitivity decreased and some negative visual symptoms were observed, patients' satisfaction was generally high due to the high rate of spectacles independence. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups.
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.