ArticleCureus2025
Autorefraction Pitfalls in Extended Depth-of-Focus Pseudophakia: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) are increasingly used to provide a broad range of vision after cataract surgery. However, their unique optical design can produce misleading results when postoperative refraction is assessed using automated methods. We report three pseudophakic patients implanted bilaterally with Tecnis PureSee IOLs, all of whom demonstrated excellent uncorrected visual acuity (1.0) but appeared myopic on autorefractor testing. Based on these values, opticians prescribed minus-powered spectacles, including night-driving glasses and progressive lenses. All three patients developed asthenopic symptoms such as headaches, nausea, diplopia, or dizziness. Symptoms resolved rapidly upon discontinuation of spectacles. However, diagnosis was delayed by 2.5 to 4 weeks. These cases illustrate the risk of overcorrection due to objective refraction artifacts in EDOF optics. The myopic shift observed on autorefraction did not reflect functional visual performance. Lack of communication between surgeons and opticians, as well as unawareness of IOL model-specific refraction behavior, contributed to incorrect prescriptions and patient dissatisfaction. Subjective refraction and functional assessment are essential following EDOF IOL implantation. Communication between ophthalmologists and optical professionals should be improved, and IOL-specific refractive behavior must be considered to avoid unnecessary spectacle correction and ensure optimal visual outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Understanding the optical behavior of new IOLs and tailoring refractive care accordingly should be standard practice in the management of premium IOL 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.