Trial reportJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Comparison of visual and subjective outcomes between two EDOF intraocular lenses, with emphasis on mesopic performance.
Trial report 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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate outcomes after implantation of 2 extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses (IOLs), with emphasis on performance in dim light.
setting2 clinical practices in the United States.
designProspective, double-masked, randomized clinical trial.
methodsParticipants were randomized to receive Symfony Optiblue or Vivity IOLs. Objective optical quality, aberrations, and simulated visual disturbances were measured before and 3 months postoperatively. Binocular visual acuity (VA), the defocus curve, and low contrast VA were measured under mesopic lighting conditions. Patient questionnaires were administered, and undirected patient comments were recorded.
results31 participants in each group completed the study. Refractive outcomes were not significantly different. The Symfony lens provided about a half line better monocular mesopic VA at distance when uncorrected and best corrected ( P < .05). There were no differences in binocular visual function between lenses except for the mesopic defocus curve at -1.00 diopters (D) and -1.50 D, with the Symfony lens providing better VA at those vergences ( P < .02). Objective optical measures improved after surgery, with improvements not different by group. There were no differences in the size or intensity of simulated glare, but simulated halos and starburst size and intensity were significantly worse with the Symfony lens ( P < .05). Satisfaction with distance and intermediate vision in both groups was high. Reported visual disturbances were not significantly different between groups.
conclusionsThe 2 lenses provided similar visual performance in dim light, with the Symfony lens showing slightly better VA, but with more reports of halos and starbursts.
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.