ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Immediate Versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: Are We Overstating the Case? [Response to Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: Are We Overstating the Case? [Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
Objective: To compare the visual outcomes, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS versus DSBCS in adults undergoing cataract surgery. Evidence Review: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and gray literature (conference abstracts, registries) was conducted for studies published up to March 2023. Eligible studies directly compared ISBCS and DSBCS in adults, reporting best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), complications, or patient-reported outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Findings: Nine studies were included (3 randomized controlled trials, 5 retrospective cohorts, 1 review), encompassing sample sizes ranging from 298 patients to over 496,000 eyes. Both ISBCS and DSBCS resulted in significant improvements in BCVA, with comparable refractive accuracy. No significant differences were observed in serious complications such as endophthalmitis, cystoid macular edema, or posterior capsular rupture. Some studies reported a trend toward slightly higher patient satisfaction and faster rehabilitation in the ISBCS group. Conclusions and Relevance: ISBCS appears to be a safe and effective alternative to DSBCS in carefully selected patients, offering potential benefits in efficiency, recovery time, and patient satisfaction. Rigorous randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome measures and long-term follow-up are needed to further validate these findings.
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.