ArticleScientific reports2026
Visual function comparison of a non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus and an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens sharing the same platform.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
This study compared the clinical outcomes and optical characteristics of the TECNIS Eyhance (EH; Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) enhanced monofocal and the TECNIS PureSee (PS; Johnson & Johnson Vision) non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lenses (IOLs) sharing the same platform. In this retrospective analysis of real-world data, 69 eyes from 49 patients (EH: 35 eyes; PS: 34 eyes) were evaluated for visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate, and near ranges, alongside monocular defocus curves at 3-months postoperatively. To ensure a fair comparison and optimize intermediate vision, a consistent postoperative target refraction of -0.20 to -0.30 D was set for all eyes. Generalized estimating equations accounted for intra-subject correlations. At 3-months, both IOLs provided comparable excellent distance vision and refractive predictability without significant intergroup differences in prediction error (p = .846) or mean absolute error (p = .833). However, the PS IOL delivered significantly better uncorrected intermediate (0.16 vs. 0.23 logMAR; p < .001) and near VA (0.32 vs. 0.40 logMAR; p < .001) than the EH IOL. In conclusion, while both IOLs offer excellent distance vision and refractive stability, the non-diffractive PS IOL provides superior intermediate and near visual performance compared to the EH IOL.
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.