Observational studyJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2025
Clinical data registry comparing outcomes of two light adjustable lenses.
Observational study in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Freeform extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens for more robust performance against physiological variations.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Comment on: Clinical data registry comparing outcomes of two light adjustable lenses.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Reply : Clinical data registry comparing outcomes of two light adjustable lenses.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Current Trends in Presbyopia Correction-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
purposeTo compare the clinical performance of the light adjustable lenses (LALs) with the LAL+ with an increased central power to have broader depth of focus (DoF).
settingPrivate practice clinics.
designProspective, nonrandomized, nonmask, multicenter.
methodsClinical data collection registry of patients bilaterally implanted with the LAL or LAL+. Outcome measures included subjective manifest refraction; monocular corrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity; binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity; and binocular uncorrected best focus visual acuity at differing contrast levels.
results91.1% and 93.5% of LAL and LAL+ eyes had a manifest refraction spherical equivalent within 0.50 diopter of target, respectively. 92.0% and 89.0% of LAL and LAL+ patients had a binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better after adjustment, respectively. 86.0% and 93.0% of LAL and LAL+ patients had binocular uncorrected best focus visual acuity of J1 or better at 100% contrast, respectively. Distance corrected intermediate and near visual acuity was better with the LAL+ compared with the LAL, consistent with its further broadened DoF. Best corrected distance vision was only slightly reduced for LAL+ (1 letter), with both lenses achieving high levels.
conclusionsBoth LAL and LAL+ achieved excellent refractive and binocular visual outcomes at distance, intermediate, and near. The broadened DoF of the LAL+ was clinically evident and led to less anisometropia. The ability of patients to binocularly select and adjust their refraction according to their visual goal is a unique therapeutic approach to cataract refractive patients.
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.