ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Visual Outcomes and Reading Performance of a Non-Diffractive EDOF IOL in Chinese Eyes: A Prospective Comparison of Emmetropia and Mini-Monovision Targets.
Article 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. 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
Purpose: To evaluate the visual outcomes, reading performance, and patient satisfaction following bilateral implantation of a non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) in Chinese eyes, and to compare the efficacy of emmetropia versus mini-monovision targets. Patients and Methods: This prospective, multi-center, observational study included 72 patients (144 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of the AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL (or Toric model). Patients were divided into two groups based on the refractive target: emmetropia (n=29) and mini-monovision (n=43). At 3 months postoperatively, binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were assessed. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the International Reading Speed Test (IReST), the Questionnaire for Visual Disturbances (QUVID), and the Intraocular Lens Satisfaction (IOLSAT) questionnaire. Results: At 3 months, both groups achieved excellent binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (emmetropia: 0.03 ± 0.06 logMAR; mini-monovision: 0.05 ± 0.06 logMAR) and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (emmetropia: 0.12 ± 0.14 logMAR; mini-monovision: 0.13 ± 0.14 logMAR). No statistically significant differences were observed in binocular UIVA (p=0.317) or UNVA (p=0.684) between the emmetropia and mini-monovision groups, although the mini-monovision group demonstrated significantly higher rates of spectacle independence (89.2% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.049). The mean reading speed improved significantly from 172 ± 67 wpm preoperatively to 201 ± 58 wpm postoperatively (p<0.05). Regarding visual disturbances, 100% of patients in both groups reported "none to a little" for starbursts, halos, and glare. Patient satisfaction was high in both cohorts (66.7% in the emmetropia group and 79.5% in the mini-monovision group). Conclusion: The non-diffractive Vivity IOL provides excellent distance and intermediate vision with a favorable visual disturbance profile in Chinese eyes. While the mini-monovision strategy enhanced spectacle independence and patient satisfaction, the improvements in uncorrected near acuity were not statistically significant compared to emmetropia. These short-term findings suggest that a myopic target closer to -0.75 D or -1.00 D may need to be evaluated to maximize chart-based near vision benefits in this population.
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.