ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Visual function and patient satisfaction with 3 types of monofocal plus intraocular lenses.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
- Realistic Visual Acuity and Patient Satisfaction After Simultaneous Bilateral Tecnis Eyhance DIB00 Monofocal Plus Lens Implantation During a 12-Month Follow-Up Period in a Single-Center Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual performance between three enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses under different refractive targets.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare visual function and patient-reported satisfaction among 3 types of monofocal plus intraocular lenses (IOLs) STUDY
designRetrospective case series
methodsThis study included 122 eyes from 61 patients who underwent bilateral implantation of DIB00V (Johnson & Johnson Vison Care, 22 patients), NSP-3 (Nidek, 18 patients), or XY1-EM (Hoya Surgical Optics, 21 patients) between July 2023 and October 2024. At 3 months postoperatively, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at 5 m, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 70 cm and 50 cm, manifest refraction, and letter contrast sensitivity were compared. Responses to a questionnaire assessing subjective satisfaction with daily visual activities were analyzed.
resultsNo significant differences were observed among the 3 groups in CDVA at 5 m and DCIVA at 50 cm (P = .45, P = .12). DCIVA at 70 cm was significantly better with the XY1-EM than with the DIB00V (P <.01). Manifest refraction and letter contrast sensitivity showed no significant differences among the groups (P = .55, P = .88). A significant difference in satisfaction scores for night driving was found, with the DIB00V scoring higher than the NSP-3 (P <.05). Spectacle independence was achieved more frequently with the XY1-EM (81.0%) than with the DIB00V (63.6%) and NSP-3 (66.7%) (P <.05).
conclusionsThe 3 monofocal plus IOLs demonstrated comparable visual function in terms of CDVA at 5 m, DCIVA at 50 cm, and letter contrast sensitivity. However, the XY1-EM exhibited significantly better DCIVA at 70 cm and a higher rate of spectacle independence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40844678What 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.