ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Comparative accuracy of image-guided systems and smartphone applications for enhanced monofocal toric IOL alignment in cataract surgery.
Article in International 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of cataract surgery with toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) using two different alignment methods: an image-guided system and a smartphone application-guided method, and to evaluate their efficacy, feasibility, and potential for improving accessibility.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 171 eyes of 120 patients undergoing cataract surgery with an enhanced monofocal toric IOL (Eyhance, Johnson & Johnson Inc., USA). Because some patients contributed both eyes, within-patient correlation was accounted for using generalized estimating equations (GEE). Outcomes included toric alignment error and refractive outcomes.
resultsMean absolute alignment error was 1.37 ± 1.29° in the image-guided group and 1.84 ± 1.47° in the smartphone-guided group. In clustered GEE analysis, the smartphone workflow was associated with higher absolute alignment error (p = 0.04). Postoperative refractive cylinder and spherical equivalent prediction accuracy were similar between groups.
conclusionBoth systems demonstrated excellent refractive outcomes. The image-guided system provides superior accuracy in total absolute alignment error. While the smartphone application also provides comparable outcomes, it offers a cost-effective alternative, expanding accessibility in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41874809What 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.