ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Halo assessment in intraocular lenses through high dynamic range images.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diffractive intraocular lenses reshape 577-nm retinal laser photocoagulation spots in a model eye.Lasers in medical science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the halo formation of several intraocular lenses (IOLs) in the optical bench.
settingUniversity of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
designIn vitro study.
methodsLight from a green LED passed through a pinhole and was collimated. Each IOL was placed within a realistic model eye having a PMMA cornea with a physiological amount of spherical aberration and a 4.5 mm aperture. A digital camera sensor acted as the retina and a focus tunable lens was used to change the object's vergence (range ±4 diopters). Series of images were captured with different exposure times and fused to get a high dynamic range image. Performance was assessed by analyzing the corresponding halo brightness and size. The tested lenses, that included biconvex and inverted meniscus IOLs, were monofocals, extended depth-of-focus (EDOF), and diffractive trifocals.
resultsMonofocal lenses produced halos with a radius close to 0.4 degrees. The halo radii of the nondiffractive EDOF lenses ranged between 0.45 and 0.63 degrees, whereas diffractive lenses had radii ranging from 0.84 to 1.22 degrees. The halo was generally dimmer for the refractive lenses and brighter for the diffractive. The through-focus images show that the halo size was larger at any defocus position for the diffractive lenses than for the rest of the tested IOLs.
conclusionsThe diffractive IOLs exhibited a characteristic halo structure. Performance of the inverted meniscus and other nondiffractive lenses (Vivity and Eyhance) was comparable with a monofocal lens. This on-bench test can serve as an indication of the potential impact of photic phenomena on patient satisfaction.
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.