ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of visual outcomes in patients with cataracts and high myopia after implantation of a zonal refractive multifocal or diffractive bifocal intraocular lens.
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
Abstract
This study compares the optical quality of zonal refractive multifocal and diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and visual outcomes after implantation in 93 patients(93 eyes) with cataracts and high myopia. A retrospective analysis was conducted to measure visual acuity at far, intermediate, and near distances, defocus curves, wavefront aberrations, modulation transfer function (MTF), a Quality of Vision questionnaire (QoV) and visual quality self-evaluation were examined at 3 months. The results demonstrated the ZMB group showed better uncorrected near visual acuity (P < 0.01), and the MF15 group showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (P < 0.001). The ZMB group provided better MTF than the MF15 group (P < 0.01) but demonstrated a worse QoV score, especially for the severity of glare, halo, and starburst (P < 0.05). The satisfaction score and spectacle independence rate in the ZMB group were higher than in the MF15 group (P < 0.01). LS-313MF15 and TecnisZMB00 offered excellent visual restoration, stable distance visual acuity, and good subjective visual function.
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.