ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative visual performance of ultraviolet light-filtering and violet light-filtering monofocal intraocular lenses of the same material and basic design.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the visual performance of ZCB00 ultraviolet light-filtering and ZCB00V violet light-filtering monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) (both Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision) with the same materials and basic design in cataract patients treated from 2011 to 2020. The evaluations were performed 10 weeks after the last surgery for implantation of bilateral lenses ≤ 3 months apart. The ZCB00 and ZCB00V groups included 904 eyes from 452 patients (age 72.3 ± 6.8 y; women/men, 268/184) and 1374 eyes from 687 patients (age 73.0 ± 7.4 y; women/men, 415/272), respectively. Statistical validity was confirmed using a linear mixed-effects model with binocular data and adjustments for age, sex, subjective refraction cylinder, subjective refraction spherical equivalent, corneal astigmatism, axial length, pupil diameter, and corneal higher-order aberrations. ZCB00 showed slightly but significantly better results (p < 0.05, Wald) for uncorrected intermediate/near visual acuity, corrected near visual acuity, and components of the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) (Role_Limitation, Mental_Health, Social_Function, Distance_Vision, Color_Vision). Additionally, ZCB00V showed significantly better contrast sensitivity with glare (visual angle of target: 6.3°/4.0°/0.7°; p < 0.00068, Wald); slightly but significantly better contrast sensitivity without glare (4.0°/2.5°/1.6°) and with glare (2.5°/1.6°/1.0°), VFQ-25 General_Health scores, and near spectacle independence; and slightly but significantly smaller higher-order aberrations (internal, scaled to a 6-mm pupil; Wavefront_6_post_I_Trefoil) (p < 0.05, Wald).
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.