Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41948581›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026

Toric Versus non-toric intraocular lenses for pre-existing corneal astigmatism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Le-Han Hao, Cheng Pei

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Le-Han HaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Cheng PeiDepartment of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Preoperative corneal astigmatism is prevalent among cataract patients and has a negative effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity. Toric IOLs are commonly used to correct astigmatism and clinical trials and expert consensus have reported advantages as compared to non-toric IOLs, but the degree and the consistency of these improvements remain to be more clearly defined. Methods: Clinical studies comparing toric and non-toric IOL implantation in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism were identified in PubMed and Web of Science. The primary outcome was postoperative residual refractive astigmatism; secondary outcomes were UDVA, corrected distance visual acuity, the proportion of eyes with residual refractive cylinder ≤ 0.5 D, and postoperative spherical equivalent. Effect estimates were pooled as standardized mean differences, mean differences or odds ratios along with 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of twelve studies qualified for inclusion. Toric IOLs yielded lower residual refractive astigmatism (SMD = -1.03, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.90) and better UDVA (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.76) than non-toric IOLs. More eyes with toric IOLs achieved residual cylinder ≤ 0.5 D (OR = 3.31, 95% CI 2.44 to 4.48). The differences in spherical equivalent were small (MD = 0.07 D, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13) and are likely to be of limited clinical relevance. Conclusions: In patients with corneal astigmatism, toric IOLs provide more precise astigmatic correction and better uncorrected distance vision. These pooled effect sizes refine the current consensus and may assist refractive planning in cataract surgery.

Indexed as

cataract surgerycorneal astigmatismnon-toricintraocular lensessystematic reviewtoric intraocular lens

Identifiers

PMID41948581
PMCPMC13050658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.