ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
Patient-reported outcome measures after non-diffractive extended range of field IOL implantation: PureSee versus Vivity.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 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.
- Comparison of U.S. FDA premarket approval studies between two non-diffractive extended depth of focus lenses (AcrySof IQ Vivity versus TECNIS PureSee).Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a head-to-head comparison of two extended range of field intraocular lenses (IOLs) for their patient-reported outcome measures.
settingKeye Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
designClinical cohort study.
methodsEighty-five emmetropic bilaterally operated patients (PureSee [N = 34] vs. AcrySof Vivity [N = 51]) were compared for their visual outcomes, dysphotopsia (scale 0-100), and spectacle-independent visual function index (VF)-14 questionnaire scores at the 6-month timepoint.
resultsBaseline patient and ophthalmic variables were comparable between the groups. Acrysof Vivity provided better uncorrected near (0.21 ± 0.10 vs. 0.28 ± 0.07 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) and intermediate visual acuities (0.08 ± 0.09 vs. 0.22 ± 0.08 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) compared with PureSee. In contrast, contrast sensitivities in photopic (1.57 ± 0.14 vs. 1.45 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.024) and mesopic conditions (1.30 ± 0.12 vs. 1.19 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.025) were greater for PureSee than Acrysof Vivity. PureSee was associated with overall mean dysphotopsia scores (1.3 ± 3.2 vs. 5.8 ± 9.3, p = 0.009) significantly less than for Acrysof Vivity. Spectacle-independent VF-14 scores for visual acuities at near, specifically reading small print (76.0 ± 20.0 vs. 65.9 ± 22.4, p = 0.046), newspaper or a book (94.8 ± 11.5 vs. 80.3 ± 19.5, p < 0.001), and large-print or numbers on a telephone (88.0 ± 15.4 vs. 79.5 ± 18.2, p = 0.030) were significantly greater for Acrysof Vivity than PureSee, whereas overall mean spectacle-independent VF-14 scores remained statistically non-significant for the two IOLs (92.6 ± 5.7 vs. 89.3 ± 9.7, respectively; p = 0.115).
conclusionsAcrysof Vivity was associated with greater spectacle-independent near visual acuity and visual function for reading, while PureSee outperformed in photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities, glare, starburst, and overall dysphotopsia. Based on these pros and cons, optimal extended range of field IOL selection should be aligned with the individual's needs and concerns.
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.