Observational studyJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of visual performance between three enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses under different refractive targets.
Observational study in Japanese journal of 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the monocular uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) of three enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) under emmetropic and mild myopic refractive targets. STUDY
designSingle-center retrospective observational study.
methodsAmong 198 patients (244 eyes) who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with enhanced monofocal IOL implantation (Tecnis Eyhance [DIB00V, E group], Vivinex Impress [XY1-EM, I group], NIDEK NSP-3 [N group]) with emmetropia or mild myopia (-1.00D), refractive targets, monocular UCVA at six different distances (5, 1, 70, 50, 40, and 30 cm) and CS with and without glare were assessed 1 month postoperatively and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Steel-Dwass post-hoc test.
resultsIn the emmetropic group, UCVA for all IOLs achieved ≤ 0.2 logMAR from 5 m to 50 cm, with significantly better UCVA at 5 m in the E than I group (p = 0.0300) and at 50 cm in the I than N group (p = 0.0242). For mild myopia, the N group achieved better UCVA at 5 m (p = 0.0066), the I group showed superior near-visual acuity at 30 cm than the E group (p = 0.0457), and UCVA for all IOLs achieved ≤ 0.2 logMAR from 1 m to 40 cm, with the highest CS at 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree, with and without glare, in the E group. These findings suggest that combining enhanced monofocal IOLs with mild myopic targeting (-1.0 D) may optimize functional vision for everyday activities, particularly in older adults who rely on safe intermediate and near vision in daily life.
conclusionsAll IOLs showed good UCVA. The E, I, and N groups demonstrated balanced visual performance, with superior contrast sensitivity, superior near-to-intermediate vision, and superior distance vision, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41776001What 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.