ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Stereoacuity Across Distances in Bilateral Intraocular Lens Implantation: Monofocal versus Diffractive Multifocal Lenses.
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 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate stereopsis at various distances after bilateral implantation of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Patients and Methods: This study included 173 patients who underwent cataract surgery, with 70 receiving bilateral multifocal and 103 receiving bilateral monofocal IOLs. Stereoacuity was assessed without correction in the multifocal group and with correction in the monofocal group at far, intermediate, and near distances. Age-matched comparisons were conducted as the mean age was low in the multifocal group. Stereoacuity was assessed at 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 3, and 5 m using a Binoptometer 4P. Results: Stereoacuity was significantly better in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group at all distances (p < 0.05), except at 0.3 and 5 m after age matching. The proportion of patients achieving 100 arcsec or better was significantly higher in the multifocal group than in the multifocal group at all distances except 0.3 m (p < 0.05). Additionally, significant differences were noted only at 0.7 m after age matching (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients unable to identify 600 arcsec in the multifocal, monofocal, and age-matched monofocal groups were 3%, 11%, and 11% at 0.3 m; 0%, 9%, and 14% at 0.5 m; 0%, 9%, and 8% at 0.7 m; 0%, 5%, and 3% at 3 m; and 0%, 6%, and 6% at 5 m, respectively. After age matching, poor stereopsis was significantly reduced in the multifocal group at 0.5 m (p < 0.05) but not at 0.7 m. Conclusion: Patients with bilateral implanted multifocal IOLs exhibited superior stereopsis across various distances than those with bilateral monofocal IOLs. Additionally, fewer patients with multifocal IOLs experienced poor stereopsis. These results suggest that multifocal IOLs may help patients in maintaining stereopsis by facilitating focus on multiple points from far to near distances daily.
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.