ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of visual performance between monofocal and rotationally asymmetric refractive intraocular lenses.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Clinical outcomes after mix-and-match implantation of monofocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses after 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the visual performance of a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (ZCB00) and a rotationally asymmetric refractive IOL with +1.5 diopters near addition (Lentis Comfort LS-313 MF15) by investigating the ten-week postoperative parameters of both eyes of cataract patients who underwent bilateral implantation with one of the two IOLs within three months between 2011 and 2019. A total of 1352 eyes of 676 patients were enrolled; the ZCB00 group comprised 904 eyes of 452 patients (72.3 ± 6.8 years; females/males, 268/184), and the LS-313 MF15 group included 448 eyes of 224 patients (73.6 ± 7.0 years; females/males, 125/99). Comparisons were made with a linear mixed-effects model, strictly adjusting for sex, age, subjective refraction spherical equivalent, subjective refraction cylinder, corneal astigmatism, axial length, corneal higher-order aberrations, and pupil diameter to ensure statistical validity. The corrected distance visual acuity was significantly better, and most of the higher-order aberrations were significantly smaller in the ZCB00 group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). Contrast sensitivity with glare (6.3 degrees) and spectacle independence (near) were significantly better in the LS-313 MF15 group (p < 0.00068, Wald test).
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.