ReviewMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
An Update on Intraocular Lens Technology for Presbyopia Correction and Visual Outcomes.
Review in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesChoosing the most appropriate intraocular lens (IOL) for presbyopia management may be challenging given the expanding selection of available designs. This review provides an updated overview of current monofocal plus, extended depth of focus (EDoF), and trifocal IOLs, summarizing their optical properties and laboratory and clinical findings, including visual acuity outcomes and side effects.
methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify studies on monofocal plus, EDoF, and trifocal IOLs, with emphasis on optical characteristics, visual acuity outcomes, and reported photic phenomena.
resultsMonofocal plus IOLs demonstrate an improvement in depth of field compared to monofocal lenses, as evidenced by significant broadening of the defocus curve. Both refractive and diffractive EDoF IOLs show improved intermediate visual acuity, with diffractive models offering greater depth of field but a higher risk of dysphotopsia. Trifocal IOLs offer the best visual acuity at all three foci: near, intermediate, and distance. Patients' needs may be customized using sulcus- or capsulotomy-fixated IOLs, mix-and-match strategies, and binocular IOL systems.
conclusionsBased on this literature review, clinical and optical bench studies to date support optimized IOL selection based on individual patient needs for presbyopia management. However, consideration of understudied or newly released IOL models is limited as future research is needed. Additionally, further prospective, randomized, controlled, and masked studies with large sample sizes on all IOL models may further support patient decision-making by contributing to a more comprehensive literature.
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.