ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Navigating the Lens Labyrinth: A Practical Approach to Intraocular Lens Classification and Selection.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Evidence-Based Pathway from Functional Classification to Intraocular Lens Specialization: A Case Example Applying the PECO Framework.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Early Real-World Outcomes with a Novel Hybrid Full Range of Vision Intraocular Lens.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Cataract Surgery with Implantation of Either a Partial-Depth of Field Extended or Monofocal Intraocular Lens.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Using Large Language Models for In Silico Development and Simulation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire for Cataract Surgery with Various Intraocular Lenses: A Pre-Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Reliability of Prediction Models for the Functional Classification of a Sinusoidal Intraocular Lens Depending on Pupil Diameter.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The expanding array of intraocular lenses (IOLs) designed to increase the depth-of-field (DOFi) presents cataract and refractive surgeons with considerable complexity when selecting the most appropriate IOL to meet patient expectations. This practical review underscores the importance of using the functional classification framework, given the large number of different available models and clinical studies. By adopting a classification system grounded in clinical outcomes, surgeons can systematically choose IOLs on the basis of the probability of achieving spectacle independence and optimal visual acuity. Beyond functional classification, the review emphasizes the critical importance of considering additional factors such as contrast sensitivity and dysphotopsia risk to tailor IOL selection to individual visual needs. This layered approach helps optimize patient-centered outcomes and postoperative satisfaction.
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.