Trial reportArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2024
Evaluation of the impact of binocular versus monocular cataract surgery using Catquest-9SF: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis prospective, randomized, unmasked, clinical trial aimed to report the visual outcomes of cataract surgery on both eyes versus cataract surgery on one eye in Brazilian patients.
methodsThis study included patients with bilateral cataracts and binocular visual acuity worse than or equal to 0.3 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution. The patients were randomly assigned to undergo surgery on one (Control Group) or both eyes (one eye at a time; Intervention Group). Postoperatively, self-reported visual function using Catquest-9SF (primary outcome measure), binocular visual acuity, stereopsis, and ocular dominance (secondary outcome measures) were compared.
resultsA total of 151 patients (77 and 148 eyes in the Control and Intervention Groups, respectively) completed the follow-up. Patients who underwent surgery on both eyes exhibited significantly better self-reported visual function (p=0.036) and stereopsis (p=0.026) than those who underwent surgery on one eye. Binocular visual acuity and ocular dominance did not affect the group comparisons.
conclusionsSurgery on both eyes resulted in significantly better self-reported visual function and stereopsis than surgery on one eye.
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.