ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Halo Measurements in Simulated Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify the halo size produced by simulated multifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) using a novel psychophysical method, and to compare the results with an established halo assessment tool, computational simulations, and subjective bothersomeness scores. Methods: Ten participants were each presented with ten IOL designs (three trifocals, three EDOFs, three bifocals, and one monofocal) simulated using SimVis Gekko visual simulator (2EyesVision, Spain). Halo size was quantified using both the established Halo V1.0 software and a custom-developed scrolling method designed for rapid halo assessment. Results were compared with computational predictions derived from Fourier optics. Perceived visual disturbance was evaluated using a shortened version of the Assessment of Intra Ocular Lens Implant Symptoms questionnaire. Results: Trifocals produced larger halos than EDOFs, whereas the monofocal generated the smallest. Measurements obtained with Halo V1.0 and scrolling method were highly correlated (r = 0.99) and showed strong agreement with computational estimations (r > 0.92). Halo size increased with IOL addition power by 5 arcmin/diopter. The scrolling method required less time (29.6 ± 16.2 vs. 283 ± 1.7 seconds) and exhibited lower variability (1 ± 0.8 vs. 5.4 ± 5.8 arcmin) compared to Halo V1.0. Subjective disturbance scores correlated strongly with measured halo (r > 0.98). Conclusions: SimVis Gekko emulates halo phenomena associated with different IOL designs. The custom scrolling method provides fast, reliable halo assessment with potential for research and clinical application. Translational Relevance: Findings support integrating preoperative halo simulation and rapid psychophysical evaluation to enhance personalized IOL selection and patient counseling.
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.