Observational studyPloS one2026
Visual outcomes and quality of life after bilateral extended depth of field, bifocal, and mix-and-match IOL implantation.
Observational study in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the visual outcomes and vision-related quality of life among three intraocular lens (IOL) implantation strategies: bilateral extended depth of field (EDoF) IOL, bilateral bifocal IOL, and a mix-and-match approach.
methodsIn this prospective, non-randomized, observational study, patients with bilateral age-related cataracts selected their preferred IOL implantation type and were categorized into three groups accordingly. Three months after surgery, assessments of corrected and uncorrected binocular visual acuity at far, intermediate, and near distances were conducted, along with refraction, defocus curve, stereoacuity, vision-related quality of life, and photic symptoms.
resultsA total of 76 patients (152 eyes) were included. All patients achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) of 20/32 or better in all groups. Binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity were superior in the mix-and-match and bilateral EDoF IOL groups (both P < 0.01). The bilateral bifocal IOL and mix-and-match groups demonstrated better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (both P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed among the three groups in UDVA, BCDVA, or uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) (P > 0.05). All groups reported similar outcomes for stereoacuity, vision-related quality of life, and photic symptoms (P > 0.05).
conclusionsAll three IOL strategies provided favorable vision-related quality of life, with the mix-and-match and bilateral EDoF IOL groups showing superior intermediate vision. The mix-and-match and bilateral bifocal IOL groups demonstrated better distance-corrected bilateral near vision performance, despite comparable UNVA among the three groups. These approaches remain valuable alternatives for providing optimal visual outcomes in regions where full vision range IOL are not yet accessible.
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.