Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2025
Comparing toric intraocular lens alignment: intraoperative image-guided system versus manual marking in cataract surgery: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Toric Versus non-toric intraocular lenses for pre-existing corneal astigmatism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- [Current applications and prospects of artificial intelligence in burn diagnosis and treatment].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Meridian-Dependent Geometric Planning for Pars Plana Scleral Fixation: An Orientation-Adjusted Analytical Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) alignment using the image-guided Callisto Eye system (M/S Carl Zeiss Meditech AG, Germany) versus the conventional manual marking method (Bubble marker) in cataract surgery.
designProspective, single-centre, double-masked, randomized controlled trial with two comparative arms. The study was registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2023/07/055833).
methodsA total of 76 patients aged 18 years or older, with cataract and corneal astigatism greater than 1.25 diopters (D), were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to either the image-guided group (Group 1 n = 38) or the manual marking group (Group 2 n = 38). Group 1 underwent IOL alignment using the Callisto Eye system, while Group 2 used the bubble marker manual technique. The primary outcome measure was IOL misalignment on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included rotational stability, residual astigmatism, and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) on POD 30.
resultsThe mean IOL misalignment on POD 1 was 2.7 ± 3.6 degrees in Group 1 and 4 ± 3.1 degrees in Group 2, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.108). Rotational stability showed a mean change of 0.71 ± 1.3 degrees in Group 1 and 0.78 ± 1.5 degrees in Group 2 (P = 0.815). Residual astigmatism was comparable between the groups (P = 0.176), and UDVA was similar, with no significant differences (P = 0.595).
conclusionBoth the image-guided Callisto Eye system and the manual marking method demonstrated statistically equivalent effectiveness in toric IOL alignment, rotational stability, residual astigmatism, and UDVA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40471381What 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.