ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Basic Optics Underlying Current Intraocular Lenses.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Visual Outcomes After Mix-and-Match Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Digital Visual Acuity and Reading Performance with Positive and Negative Display Polarities After Bilateral Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation: A Longitudinal Observational Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Functional Intermediate Vision and Pupil-Dependent Optical Behavior After Implantation of a Segmented Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As surgeries using multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) to correct both cataracts and presbyopia have become common, it has become essential for clinicians to understand their basic optical characteristics to select the optimal lens for their patients. However, there are relatively few review articles on optics that are directly useful to clinicians who perform surgery on patients. In this paper, we systematically review fundamental concepts, from the basic properties of light, geometric optics, and Gaussian approximation to lens performance metrics like the point spread function and modulation transfer function (MTF), and the clinical implications of spherical and chromatic aberrations. Based on these principles, the mechanisms of major multifocal technologies are explained. We also explore the refractive extended depth of focus lenses, which expand the range of focus by precisely controlling higher-order spherical aberrations. In contrast, diffractive lenses use diffractive kinoforms to split light into multiple foci, and they may also leverage higher diffraction orders to correct chromatic aberration. However, this multifocality involves an optical compromise, often resulting in a reduced overall MTF compared to monofocal IOLs and photic phenomena such as glare and halo. In conclusion, while multifocal IOLs are groundbreaking technology that significantly enhances quality of life by reducing spectacle dependence, this comes at the cost of sacrificing optimal image quality. Therefore, a thorough understanding of these optical principles by ophthalmologists is crucial for selecting the optimal lens according to each patient's ocular condition and for managing postoperative outcomes.
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.