ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical and simulated impact of intraocular lens tilt and decentration based on real-world data and optical simulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Early dynamics of intraocular lens position: longitudinal analysis of decentration and tilt after surgery.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Early Real-World Outcomes with a Novel Hybrid Full Range of Vision Intraocular Lens.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether the optical degradation induced by clinically measured intraocular lens (IOL) tilt and decentration, quantified through individualized synthetic eye models, translates into measurable changes in subjective refraction or visual acuity (BCVA). We included 105 eyes implanted with monofocal aspheric IOL and measured their positioning using AS-OCT. These data were used to reconstruct each eye in optical simulation software and evaluate four scenarios: aligned, decentered, tilted, and combined decentration and tilt. For each case, we calculated wavefront aberrations, three objective refractions, and predicted visual acuity from the radial MTF. The average IOL tilt was 5.19 ± 1.28° and decentration was 0.25 ± 0.13 mm. Coma RMS increased from 0.00 μm in the aligned model to 0.26 ± 0.09 μm in the most altered scenario (p < 0.001), and VSX decreased from 0.80 ± 0.11 to 0.35 ± 0.17. Despite this optical degradation, BCVA remained unaffected, with a mean of 0.00 ± 0.05 LogMAR, and no significant correlation was found with tilt or decentration. The best agreement between simulated and clinical refraction was observed when both tilt and decentration were included. These results suggest that moderate IOL misalignment degrades optical quality without compromising visual acuity in monofocal IOLs, but further studies are needed for multifocal designs.
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.