ReviewOphthalmology2026
LASIK for Hyperopia: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Review in Ophthalmology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effectiveness, predictability, safety, and stability of LASIK for hyperopia.
methodsA literature search of the PubMed database was last conducted in August 2025. The search yielded 198 articles that were reviewed in abstract form, 88 of which were selected for full-text review. Twenty studies (containing a total of 25 different cohorts) met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each study.
resultsTwo studies were rated level I, 6 studies were rated level II, and 12 studies were rated level III. Of the 18 cohorts for which effectiveness data were presented, at least 80% of eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) of 20/40 or better, and in 16 of 18 cohorts, at least 50% of eyes achieved a UCDVA of 20/20 or better. Among the cohorts reporting predictability outcomes, 16 of 19 achieved more than 60% of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) of the intended correction. Likewise, 16 of 21 cohorts reported more than 90% of eyes within ±1.00 D of target, and all cohorts reached at least 80% within this range. Of the 23 cohorts for which safety data were presented, 19 cohorts contained no more than 3% and 15 cohorts contained no more than 1% of eyes losing 2 lines or more of Snellen corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). The safety index (ratio of postoperative CDVA to preoperative CDVA) ranged from 0.97 to 1.05. In the cohorts in which refractive stability between 3 and 6 months was analyzed, the average spherical equivalent variation was 0.05 D (maximum, 0.3 D). Worse stability outcomes were associated with higher hyperopia treatments, slower pulse rates (< 500 Hz), older laser models, and smaller optical zones (≤ 6 mm).
conclusionsLASIK for hyperopia performed using the current excimer laser models (characterized by faster pulse rates, larger optical zones, and updated ablation profiles) seems to have relatively high rates of effectiveness, predictability, safety, and stability. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.