SynthesisScientific reports2025
Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Choroidal vascularity and thickness modulation with topical nepafenac after phacoemulsification: a comparative study in diabetic and non-diabetic eyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Seminuclear Flip Phacoemulsification for Soft Nuclear Cataract Surgery: A New Soft Nucleus Cataract Chopping Technique.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aims to compare the efficacy/safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) vs. conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery (CPCS). A systematic search/analysis of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to January 2023 was conducted without date/language restrictions. Weighted mean differences, risk ratios, and Hedges' g with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The stability of results was assessed using trial sequential analysis (TSA). International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration No. PROSPERO CRD42023393323. Forty-six randomized controlled trials (8,871 eyes) revealed that FLACS yielded a significantly better corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) 1 week postoperatively (P = 0.011) with no significant differences in CDVA beyond 1 week (P = 0.161, 0.429, 0.403), or in uncorrected distance visual acuity (P = 0.171, 0.136, 0.322, 0.149), spherical equivalent, or surgically induced astigmatism. Concerning safety outcomes, no significant differences were observed in overall complications (P = 0.999). These findings were supported by TSA. Ultimately, the overall complications, patient-reported health, visual, and daily-activity outcomes were not significantly different between FLACS and CPCS. Regarding extended-term and patient-centered outcomes, we identified no substantial disparities in visual acuity, complications, or patient-reported outcomes between FLACS and CPCS. Subgroup analysis showed consistent efficacy and safety across diverse laser platforms. Notably, FLACS exhibited no clear cost-effectiveness advantage over CPCS.
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.