ArticleBMJ open2026
Investigating the impact of residual refraction within ±1.0 dioptre on uncorrected distance visual acuity in pseudophakic eyes: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the impact of residual refraction within ±1.0 dioptre (D) on uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) in pseudophakic eyes.
designCross-sectional study.
settingThis study was based on retrospectively collected electronic refraction records from a tertiary care academic ophthalmology centre in southern China between May 2022 and July 2025.
participantsPatients aged ≥40 years who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification cataract surgery with in-the-bag monofocal intraocular lens implantation and achieved a postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of ≤0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution were enrolled. They were stratified by astigmatism subtypes: minimal astigmatism (<0.50 D), with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism, against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism and oblique astigmatism. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Postoperative evaluation (≥1 month) included spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, UDVA and CDVA. UDVA was compared across eyes with SE intervals of 0.50 D within ±1.0 D. ORs were calculated to assess the relative risk of failing to achieve a UDVA of 0.1 or better for postoperative SE within ±1.0 D, using 0.00 D as the reference.
resultsThe study included 1333 eyes from 1333 patients (mean (SD) age, 66.1 (8.96) years; 532 male (39.9%)). Overall, and particularly in the minimal astigmatism (<0.50 D), ATR astigmatism and oblique astigmatism subgroups, hyperopic eyes exhibited significantly better UDVA than their myopic counterparts. Slight myopia [-0.50 D, 0 D) significantly worsened UDVA versus 0 D in both the overall population and the minimal astigmatism subgroup. Slight hyperopia (0 D, +0.50 D] minimally affected UDVA, whereas an equivalent degree of myopia increased the odds of not achieving UDVA ≤0.1 by 1.55-fold (95% CI 1.08 to 2.21) overall and by 3.14-fold (95% CI 1.49 to 6.58) in the minimal astigmatism subgroup. Additionally, UDVA was optimal with minimal astigmatism and decreased progressively with each 0.50 D increment in residual astigmatism magnitude, a dose-dependent trend consistent across astigmatism subtypes.
conclusionsThe impact of refractive errors (≤1.0 D) on UDVA was associated with the magnitude and type of astigmatism. Residual astigmatism of ≥0.50 D exerted a significant negative effect on UDVA. A plano SE (0 D) was optimal for minimum and WTR astigmatism, whereas slight hyperopia yielded superior UDVA in ATR and oblique astigmatism.
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.