ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
A Retrospective Study: Comparative Visual Performance of Two Non-Diffractive Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: TECNIS PureSee versus Clareon Vivity.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of U.S. FDA premarket approval studies between two non-diffractive extended depth of focus lenses (AcrySof IQ Vivity versus TECNIS PureSee).Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare postoperative visual performance between two non-diffractive, extended depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) - TECNIS PureSee and Clareon Vivity - by evaluating visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, 102 eyes (51 per group) received either the PureSee or Vivity IOL. Visual acuity at various distances, defocus curves, and contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions were assessed at 2 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction and visual disturbances were also evaluated. Results: Both the PureSee and Vivity IOL demonstrated comparable visual acuity at far and near distances, while the Vivity showing significantly better visual acuity at intermediate distances ( Conclusion: The Vivity IOL performed better at intermediate distances with fewer photic phenomena when compared with the PureSee IOL. The differences between these two EDoF IOLs may help in lens selection based on patient's visual demands and lifestyle.
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.