ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Clinical Outcomes of an Enhanced and Conventional Monofocal IOL in Patients with Early and Intermediate Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of visual outcomes of enhanced monofocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Editorial: Enhancing patient outcomes after cataract, corneal and refractive surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the performance of an enhanced and conventional monofocal IOL in eyes with early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods: This retrospective study compared one-month postoperative outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with TECNIS Eyhance IOL (ICB00 group) or TECNIS Monofocal IOL (ZCB00 group). All patients underwent cataract surgery with pre-existing early or intermediate dry AMD. Outcome measures were monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuity, monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and refractive outcomes. Monocular visual acuities and refractive predictability were calculated for the dominant eye of each patient. Results: The ICB00 group comprised 143 eyes of 143 patients, while 164 eyes of 164 patients were included in the ZCB00 group. Preoperative characteristics were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in postoperative refractive predictability, with 87.4% and 89.6% of eyes within 0.50 D of emmetropia in the ICB00 and ZCB00 groups, respectively (p=0.54). No difference was found in postoperative UDVA or CDVA between the groups. Both monocular and binocular UIVA were significantly better in the ICB00 group (monocular UIVA: 0.32±0.19 vs 0.42±0.22 logMAR, p<0.001; binocular UIVA: 0.25±0.18 vs 0.36±0.17 logMAR, p<0.001). Postoperative UNVA was also better with the ICB00 IOL (monocular UNVA: 0.58±0.16 vs 0.69±0.20 logMAR, p<0.001; binocular UNVA: 0.50±0.16 vs 0.63±0.17 logMAR, p<0.001). Conclusion: ICB00 IOL enhanced intermediate and near vision in patients with AMD while achieving the same level of corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity.
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.