SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Meta-analysis of defocus curves of monofocal, enhanced monofocal and extended depth of focus IOLs.
Synthesis in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Experience with Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses Following Cataract Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Case Series.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens Based on Aberration-Neutral Technique.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- 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
- Clinical outcomes of effectiveness and safety in cataract patients implanted with the novel hybrid extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens AM2UH: a prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsRecently, modified monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) (proposed mono plus IOLs) have emerged claiming to provide monofocal quality distance vision while enhancing intermediate distance visual performance. The purpose of this study was to conduct a literature review and compare the range of vision following cataract surgery with the implantation of standard monofocal, claimed monofocal plus and extended depth of focus (EDoF) IOLs.
methodsLiterature searches and a meta-analysis were conducted on Embase, PubMed, IOLEvidence App and the Food and Drug Administration premarket approval database. Mean defocus curves were calculated with a random effect model and study quality was assessed.
resultsAfter eliminating duplicate publications, 36 studies were included in the data extraction process. Standard monofocal IOLs were implanted in 549 eyes, 360 eyes with claimed mono plus IOLs and 1898 eyes with EDoF IOLs. At far viewing acuity, the performance of all three lens categories appeared comparable: all p>0.05. However, at the intermediate distance of 66 cm (-1.5D), and at a near distance of 40 cm (-2.50D), monofocal and mono plus defocus curve acuities exhibited comparable performance: p=0.22 and 0.77 respectively, while EDoF lenses demonstrated better acuity (all p<0.05).
conclusionsThere is a lack of standardisation of defocus curve measurements among published papers included in this meta-analysis. Despite some slight inconsistencies in measurements, the range of vision of standard monofocal IOLs and mono plus IOLs as measured by the defocus curve appears to be similar. The EDoF IOLs in this meta-analysis indicate a potentially better range of vision compared with mono plus and monofocal IOLs. SYNOPSIS: This meta-analysis seems to indicate that EDoF IOLs may have a better range of vision as measured by defocus curves compared with mono plus and monofocal IOLs.
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.