ArticleAJO international2026
Linking multicenter electronic health records with socioeconomic data to examine receipt of standard versus premium intraocular lenses.
Article in AJO international, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) can improve visual outcomes and reduce dependence on glasses but often require out-of-pocket payment. The socioeconomic factors influencing their selection remain poorly understood. Leveraging a multi-institutional electronic health record dataset, we examined demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with receiving a premium versus standard IOL and the likelihood of switching IOL type (premium to standard or vice versa) between first and second cataract surgeries. Design: Retrospective cohort study across 10 medical centers. Participants: 46,349 patients who underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation from 2010 to 2023. Results: 9.7 % of patients received at least one premium intraocular lens (IOL). Toric lenses comprised 79 % of premium implants. Premium IOL recipients were more often White, English-speaking, higher income, and college educated. Black race (aOR 0.44, 95 % CI 0.30-0.66), non-English language (aOR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.44-0.94), lower income (aOR 0.40, 95 % CI 0.20-0.81), and lower education were associated with reduced odds of premium IOL implantation. Associations persisted after accounting for ocular comorbidities. Among bilateral cases, 4.2 % of patients switched IOL type between surgeries. Specifically, Black and lower-income patients were less likely to upgrade to a premium IOL for their second surgery. Conclusions: Socioeconomic and racial factors are strongly associated with the choice of premium IOL, with toric lenses comprising the majority of premium implants. Targeted efforts to improve access and patient education may help ensure more equitable adoption of advanced lens technologies.
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.