ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Effects of effective optical zone and decentration on visual quality after smile for different astigmatism types.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Small Effective Optical Zone After SMILE via Multimodal Machine Learning Integrating Corneal Topography and Clinical Parameters.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Frequency-dependent associations of contrast sensitivity and corneal aberrations after SMILE PRO in eyes with high astigmatism.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the refractive outcomes and visual quality among different types of astigmatism following SMILE and evaluate effective optical zone (EOZ) features, decentration and their potential effects on visual quality.
methodsThis study included 101 left eyes of 101 patients who underwent SMILE. Patients were grouped according to astigmatism types (with-the-rule [WTR], against-the-rule [ATR] and oblique astigmatism) and decentered displacement (major axis > minor axis and major axis < minor axis). We compared the refractive outcomes, visual quality, EOZ and decentration 3 months postoperatively and analyzed correlations between corneal aberrations and EOZ parameters.
resultsThe visual and refractive outcomes were favorable in different types of astigmatism. The induced corneal aberrations, EOZ and total decentration were comparable among three groups (all p >.05). There was a strong positive correlation (r =.828, p <.001) between preoperative cylinder axis and the angle of EOZ. The postoperative induced changes in spherical aberration (0.02 ± 0.15 vs. 0.08 ± 0.13, p =.037), coma (0.22 ± 0.27 vs. 0.36 ± 0.25, p =.010), total HOAs (0.28 ± 0.24 vs. 0.42 ± 0.31, p =.009) and LOAs (0.16 ± 0.62 vs. 0.49 ± 0.84, p =.023) were fewer in group with greater decentered displacement along the major axis than the minor axis.
conclusionsFavorable outcomes were observed in different types of astigmatism. Postoperative refractive errors, visual acuity, and induced corneal aberrations showed no significant differences between groups with WTR, ATR, and oblique astigmatism. The angle of EOZ was closely associated with cylinder axis. EOZ provided greater tolerance to decentration, with fewer induced corneal aberrations along the major axis compared to the minor axis. The combined impacts of EOZ and decentration on visual quality should be noted.
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.