ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2025
Comparison of the efficacy of the patented anterior chamber maintainer method and traditional method for implantable collamer lens implantation in myopic eyes: A clinical study.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of a novel ophthalmic viscosurgical device-free method using an anterior chamber maintainer for intraocular collamer lens implantation in eyes with myopia.MethodsForty patients underwent bilateral intraocular collamer lens implantation, with one eye receiving the traditional implantation method using an ophthalmic viscosurgical device and the other eye undergoing the anterior chamber maintainer method. Preoperative and postoperative parameters, including uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity, spherical equivalent, intraocular pressure, aberrations, subjective visual quality, corneal endothelial cell density, operation time, and complications, were compared between and within the two groups.ResultsIn the traditional group, 10% of eyes had intraocular pressure >22 mmHg at 2 h postoperatively, compared with 0% in the anterior chamber maintainer group (
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.