ReviewCureus2026
Visual Performance Comparison Between Enhanced Monofocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review is to directly compare enhanced monofocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) with respect to visual outcomes after cataract surgery. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP were searched until April 1, 2025, to retrieve studies that compared postoperative outcomes between enhanced monofocal and EDOF IOLs. The search was based on prespecified criteria for patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes and study type. The outcomes in question were uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuities, and subjective glare and halo perception. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) was used for risk of bias assessment for randomized studies, while the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used for risk of bias assessment for non-randomized studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity. Five studies with a total of 672 eyes were included: one randomized study, one prospective comparative case control study, one retrospective comparative study and two prospective comparative case series. All studies directly compared enhanced monofocal with EDOF IOLs. Tecnis Eyhance was the enhanced monofocal IOL in all studies, while the EDOF lenses included Tecnis Symfony in three studies, Tecnis PureSee in one study and Acrysof IQ Vivity in one study. The meta-analysis that was performed for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity showed that there was no significant clinical difference between the two types of IOLs (mean difference: -0.01 (-0.03, -0.00), 95% CI and -0.01 (-0.02, -0.00), 95% CI, respectively). The results of individual studies pertaining to the rest of the outcomes (uncorrected and distance corrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected and distance corrected near visual acuity, subjective glare and halo perception) were also presented. Intermediate visual acuity improvement via cataract surgery is of particular interest contemporarily. A quantitative synthesis regarding this outcome was not feasible due to substantial heterogeneity (I
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.