Trial reportJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2025
Comparison of visual performance among three higher-order aspheric enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses and a standard aspheric monofocal lens.
Trial report 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 5 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
5 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
- Contrast Sensitivity After Combined MIGS and Cataract Surgery: A Comparison of Monofocal and Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual performance between three enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses under different refractive targets.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Monofocal intraocular lens based on the Bessel principle for improved intermediate vision: a comparative assessment.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Age-stratified comparison of visual function between eyes with an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens and phakic eyes.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare visual performance among 3 types of higher-order aspheric enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and a standard aspheric monofocal IOL.
settingHayashi Eye Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.
designRandomized comparative study.
methods344 eyes of 172 patients scheduled for phacoemulsification were randomly assigned to one of the 4 groups according to the IOL type: 3 types of enhanced monofocal IOL, (1) Eyhance, (2) Impress, and (3) NSP-3, and a standard monofocal IOL, (4) Tecnis monofocal. At 2 months postoperatively, monocular and binocular distance-corrected visual acuity (VA) from far to near simulated distances, photopic and mesopic contrast VA, and degree of halo and glare symptoms were measured and compared among groups.
resultsMean monocular and binocular distance-corrected intermediate VA at 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 m was essentially better in the 3 enhanced monofocal IOL groups than in the standard monofocal IOL group ( P ≤ .04), whereas mean far and near distance-corrected VAs at 0.3, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and ∞ m did not differ significantly among the 4 groups. Mean photopic and mesopic contrast VA and the size and intensity of halo and glare symptoms did not differ significantly among groups.
conclusionsThe 3 enhanced monofocal IOL types evaluated provided significantly better intermediate VA than a standard monofocal IOL with no significant deterioration in contrast sensitivity or photic symptoms. All visual performance test results examined were comparable among the 3 enhanced monofocal IOL types, suggesting that enhanced monofocal IOLs can serve as a replacement for standard monofocal IOLs.
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.