ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Efficacy and comfort following the implantation of extended depth of focus, multifocal, and monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria, Clinical Symptoms, and Risk Factors for Visual Fatigue: A Modified Delphi Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Analysis of visual quality after implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lens Diff - aA in cataract patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual outcomes between bilateral EDOF IOL implantation and combined EDOF and bifocal IOL implantation.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Postoperative Visual Acuity and Visual Quality Among Vision Enhancing Bifocal Intraocular Lenses (AM4UH), Bifocal IOLs, and Monofocal IOLs.International journal of general 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtended depth of focus (EDOF) and multifocal (Multi) intraocular lenses (IOL) can provide a fixed distance of near vision, which may result in some discomfort for patients who prefer different near distances. The aim of this study was to compare the vision, comfortable near distance (CND) and visual comfort in patients who underwent implantation of EDOF, Multi, and monofocal (Mono) IOLs.
methodsA total of 100 eyes were implanted with Tecnis ZXR00, ZMB00 or ZCB00 IOLs. Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), the fluctuations of CND, the ability to see at comfortable or standard near distance and visual comfort were evaluated at 3-month postoperative.
resultsAt 3 months postoperative, the EDOF and Multi groups showed non-inferiority compared to the Mono group in the UDVA (P > 0.05) and CDVA (P > 0.05) but superiority in the UNVA (P < 0.001). The UIVA was better in the EDOF group, with comparable results for the Multi and Mono groups. There was no difference in preoperative and postoperative CND in the three groups. The CND visual acuity (CNDVA) was lower than the UNVA in the three groups, especially in the EDOF and Multi groups (P < 0.05). The CND effectively improved patients' near visual comfort and visual clarity, except for one patient in the Multi group who complained of severe fatigue and was unable to tolerate the experience at month 3.
conclusionThe EDOF and Multi IOLs achieved excellent visual quality and superior UNVA compared to the Mono IOL, but the CNDVA was significantly inferior to the UNVA. Patients' near visual experience can be effectively improved at their CND.
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.