ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Exploring patient preferences for intraocular lenses selection in age-related cataract: a discrete choice experiment study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Advances and Challenges in Sulcus-Implanted Intraocular Lenses: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigates the preferences of cataract patients in East China regarding intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was conducted using a questionnaire that included various IOLs attributes. Participants made choices based on different combinations of these attributes, and the data were analyzed using multinomial logit models (MNL) and latent class analysis (LCA) to identify preference heterogeneity. Results: A total of 200 cataract patients (mean age 66.2 years, 58.5% female) participated in the study. The most influential factors in IOL selection were cost, followed by presbyopia correction, with a preference for multifocal IOLs (trifocal and bifocal), spherical aberration correction, and astigmatism correction. High cost and a higher probability of adverse visual phenomena negatively affected preferences. The inclusion of blue-blocking functionality and the surgeon's recommendation had minimal influence on patient choice. LCA revealed three distinct preference groups: Class 1 ("Aberration Correction Seekers") preferred aspheric IOLs, Class 2 ("Presbyopia and Blue-Blocking Enthusiasts") favored multifocal IOLs, and Class 3 ("Astigmatism and Cost-Sensitive Patients") preferred toric IOLs. Multinomial logistic regression analysis further showed that male patients were more likely to choose toric IOLs, while individuals with higher education levels were significantly less likely to prefer multifocal IOLs. Conclusion: This study highlights significant heterogeneity in cataract patient preferences for IOLs attributes. Cost was the most critical factor, followed by presbyopia and aberration correction. Men favored toric IOLs and exhibited sensitivity to cost, while highly educated individuals preferred multifocal IOLs less. These findings underscore the need for personalized IOLs recommendations and signal opportunities for innovation and customization in the IOLs industry.
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.