ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative study of mini-monovision, crossed mini-monovision, and emmetropia with enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual function comparison of a non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus and an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens sharing the same platform.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative visual and refractive analysis of two enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Characteristics of Patients Achieved Spectacle Independence After Enhanced Monofocal IOL Implantation Targeted at Distance Vision.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction with Extended Monovision-An Innovative Strategy to Achieve Spectacle Independence in Refractive Lens Exchange.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Editorial: Enhancing patient outcomes after cataract, corneal and refractive surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of Intraocular Lens Design on Refractive Endpoint Selection: A Call for a New Paradigm.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
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
We compared the visual performance and subjective outcomes of mini-monovision, crossed mini-monovision, and bilateral emmetropia using enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). This retrospective study involved 200 eyes of 100 patients who underwent surgery for bilateral age-related cataract using an enhanced monofocal IOL (TECNIS Eyhance). The dominant eye was identified before surgery. Based on patients' preferences, they were divided into mini-monovision (dominant eye for distance and non-dominant eye for near with 1.0 D anisometropia), crossed mini-monovision (dominant eye for near and non-dominant eye for distance with 1.0 D anisometropia), or bilateral emmetropia groups. There were 32 patients in the mini-monovision group, 28 in the crossed mini-monovision group, and 40 in the emmetropia group. While binocular distance visual acuity was not different among groups, intermediate and near visual acuity was significantly better in the mini-monovision and crossed mini-monovision groups than in the emmetropia group (p < 0.001). The severity of glare and halo, as well as the level of patient satisfaction, did not differ between groups. The rate of spectacle independence was significantly higher in the mini-monovision and crossed mini-monovision groups than in the emmetropia group (p = 0.008). Mini-monovision and crossed mini-monovision approaches using enhanced monofocal IOLs are equally effective in enhancing intermediate and near vision without compromising distance vision, leading to reduced spectacle dependence.
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.