Observational studyJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Clinical outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the light adjustable lens: results of a phase IV clinical registry.
Observational study in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report the outcomes of the light adjustable lens (LAL) collected from a clinical registry.
settingMultiple private practices in the United States.
designMulticenter prospective observational study.
methodsPatients who underwent bilateral LAL implantation and who had corrected distance visual acuity ≥20/20 -2 before lens adjustment were enrolled. Assessment was performed at one visit 1 to 3 months after final lock-in treatment.
resultsA total of 1101 participants (2202 eyes) were included. Of these, 586 eyes had prior corneal refractive surgery (CRS) and 1616 had no prior CRS (No CRS). 12.3% of participants were targeted for bilateral emmetropia, 9.3% for bilateral near, and 78.4% for blended vision. Of eyes targeted for emmetropia, 81.2% achieved a uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of ≥20/20 (82.2% of No CRS and 78.4% of CRS). A total of 94.3% of eyes targeted for emmetropia had a manifest spherical equivalent (MSE) of ≤0.5 diopter (D) (94.7% of No CRS, 92.8% of CRS). The mean prediction error in MSE was -0.048 ± 0.366 D in No CRS and -0.016 ± 0.441 D in CRS. A total of 89% of patients with blended vision and 93% of patients with bilateral emmetropic target had binocular UDVA of ≥20/20. In the CRS group, 87% with blended vision and 87% with binocular emmetropia achieved binocular UDVA of ≥20/20. Binocular uncorrected near visual acuity of ≥J1 was achieved with blended vision in 85% of patients in the No CRS group and 82% of patients in the CRS group.
conclusionsIn this multicenter study, patients achieved a high degree of precision with the LAL regardless of prior CRS.
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.