ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Comparison of microperimetry outcomes in monofocal and trifocal intraocular lens recipients.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the effects of trifocal (TF) and monofocal intraocular lenses (Mono-IOL) on microperimetry outcomes in patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery.
methodsA total of 44 Mono-IOL and 38 TF-IOL recipients were evaluated six months postoperatively. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was assessed using a standard logMAR chart. Microperimetry assessments were performed using the MP-1 microperimeter to measure retinal sensitivity (RS) at 2°, 6°, and 10°, fixation points (FP) within 2° and 4°; and fixation stability. Fixation stability was quantified using the Bivariate Contour Ellipse Area (BCEA). Contrast sensitivity was assessed separately using the Pelli-Robson chart.
resultsThe Mono-IOL group exhibited significantly higher CS (1.80 ± 0.10 vs. 1.70 ± 0.11, p < 0.01) and better CDVA (p = 0.044). Retinal sensitivity was also greater at RS-2° (p = 0.036), RS-6° (p = 0.014), and RS-10° (p = 0.01). Fixation stability was better in the Mono-IOL group, with significantly smaller BCEA values at 1SD (1292 ± 1128 vs. 2027 ± 1637 min arc
conclusionMono-IOLs provided superior contrast sensitivity, retinal sensitivity, and fixation stability compared to TF-IOLs, indicating better postoperative visual function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41432828What 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.