ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Comparative Visual Outcomes of Toric and Nontoric Intraocular Lenses Featuring Combined Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus and Multifocal Designs.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- Comparative Visual Outcomes of Toric and Nontoric Intraocular Lenses Featuring Combined Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus and Multifocal Designs.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess and compare visual quality and subjective outcomes of the toric and nontoric versions of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) combining a diffractive extended depth of focus (EDoF) profile with a diffractive multifocal pattern. Methods: This prospective cohort study included patients bilaterally implanted with the TECNIS Synergy or TECNIS Synergy Toric II IOL. At 3 months postoperatively, monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected visual acuity (VA) at 100%, 50%, and 10% contrast, and binocular defocus curves were evaluated. A five-point Likert scale questionnaire assessed satisfaction at different distances, perception of halos, and willingness to choose the same lens again. Results: A total of 114 eyes (52 nontoric and 62 toric) were analyzed. Monocular UDVA was 0.02 ± 0.07 logMAR (nontoric) and 0.08 ± 0.11 logMAR (toric) ( Conclusion: Both IOL models provided similar and effective visual restoration from distance to near. Despite some reported visual disturbances, patient satisfaction and visual quality were high and comparable between the toric and nontoric lenses when appropriately aligned.
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.