SynthesisEye (London, England)2025
Monovision versus multifocality for presbyopia during primary phacoemulsification: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2025. 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.
- A comparative study of extended depth of focus, bifocal intraocular lenses and their mix-and-match.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) focuses on comparing monovision and bilateral multifocal lenses (bMFIOL) implantation methods in treating presbyopia, a common age-related condition often seen in post-cataract surgery patients. This review focuses on evaluating the efficacy, user satisfaction and limitations of these two approaches through direct or indirect comparison. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library, considering studies up to 15 July 2022, with direct or indirect comparisons between any monovision and bMFIOL implantation with bilateral cataract surgery. The study protocol has been published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022340257). Thirty-two studies (3082 patients) were included in the NMA for the primary outcome, complete post-operative spectacle independence. NMA showed monovision to be inferior to bMFIOLs, as bMFIOL was more likely to provide complete spectacle independence (RR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.34 to 3.15, p = 0.002) compared to monovision. Monovision resulted in less glare compared to bMFIOL (RR = 0.343, 95% CI = 0.181 to 0.651, p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between monovision and bMFIOL for binocular unadjusted distance visual acuity (MD = 70.01, 95% CI = -19.88 to 4.60, p = 0.437) and binocular unadjusted near visual acuity (MD = 5.46, 95% CI = -5.24 to 10.94, p = 0.191). When compared to monovision, bMFIOL provided greater complete spectacle independence at the expense of greater glare. This study was limited by data heterogeneity, and further studies with standardized reporting would be useful.
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.