ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2025
Replacing Theories with Evidence Around the Axes of the Eye in Intraocular Lens Selection: A Review for the Clinician.
Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual Outcomes and Patient-Reported Dysphotopsia After PanOptix and PanOptix Toric Implantation Stratified by Preoperative Chord Mu: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- An Evidence-Based Pathway from Functional Classification to Intraocular Lens Specialization: A Case Example Applying the PECO Framework.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Influence of angle kappa and angle alpha on visual outcomes after implantation of a nondiffractive extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lens: a prospective observation study.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- A review of angle kappa and multifocal intraocular lenses and their effect on visual outcomes.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Review
- Navigating the Lens Labyrinth: A Practical Approach to Intraocular Lens Classification and Selection.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
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
The prevailing narrative in scientific literature has long overemphasized the role of ocular axes in intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, perpetuating misconceptions that have led to unnecessary exclusions of patients. Historical assumptions, coupled with inconsistent terminology and statistical inaccuracies, have muddled clinical decision-making. This review delves into these misconceptions, offering a critical reassessment of their relevance. Drawing from a non-systematic search across PubMed, the IOLEvidence App Database, and additional sources through snowballing, the review includes diverse studies exploring the relationship between ocular axes (angles, chords, kappa, alpha, lens, …) and IOL implantation. The findings reveal widespread confusion in terminology, particularly the interchangeable use of terms like 'angles' and 'chords', and highlight device-specific variability in parameters such as Chord-mu, Chord-alpha, and Chord-lens. Despite these inconsistencies, no robust evidence supports using these measures as grounds for excluding patients from IOL procedures. Interestingly, postoperative IOL centration (Chord-iol) emerged as a more critical factor for visual outcomes than preoperative ocular axes. The evidence suggests that values for Chord-mu, Chord-alpha, and Chord-lens should prompt further evaluation of atypical cases but are not reliable exclusion criteria. Moreover, a shift in focus toward aligning the IOL slightly temporal to the vertex normal appears to optimize visual acuity and minimize photic phenomena, challenging the established paradigm of knowledge about IOL centration.
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.