SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Digital marking versus manual marking technique for toric intraocular lens alignment: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Optimizing Cataract Surgery Workflows Across a Multi-Satellite Tertiary Care Center.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManual and digital-assisted marking are the two main marking methods used for toric intraocular lens (IOL) in cataract surgery. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the consistency in accuracy for these two methods. This meta-analysis aimed to compare and evaluate the accuracy of digital and manual marking techniques for toric IOL alignment during cataract surgery.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that compared the effectiveness of these two techniques in positioning toric IOLs. The primary outcome measures included postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), mean deviation from target-induced astigmatism, and postoperative IOL misalignment. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsThis meta-analysis included four randomized controlled trials and three retrospective studies comprising 197 eyes in the digital marking group and 206 eyes in the manual marking group for comparative analyses. The statistical meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in postoperative UDVA (logMAR) between the two groups (P = 0.69). Additionally, the meta-analysis showed no significant differences in postoperative CDVA (logMAR) between the two groups (P = 0.29). However, the meta-analysis findings highlighted a significant reduction in the degree of postoperative IOL misalignment in the digital marking group compared to the manual marking group (P = 0.0001).
conclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis offer compelling evidence that the digital marking technique resulted in a lower postoperative IOL misalignment rate than that for the traditional manual marking technique. Both marking methodologies were encouraged in clinical practice because of their effectiveness and accuracy; although, the digital marking technique was generally preferred and highly recommended.
trial registrationThe protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD420251045237).
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.