ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Expanding visual horizons: comparative outcomes of bilateral implantation of an extended depth-of-focus versus enhanced and standard monofocal intraocular lenses.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
purposePatients undergoing cataract surgery have different postoperative visual priorities. Some primarily seek excellent uncorrected distance vision and accept the need for near spectacles, whereas others aim for greater spectacle independence across distance, intermediate, and near activities. This study compared visual and patient-reported outcomes after bilateral implantation of an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL), an enhanced monofocal (EM) IOL and a standard monofocal IOL.
methodsThis retrospective consecutive comparative case series included patients who underwent bilateral phacoemulsification with implantation of the same IOL model in both eyes. The evaluated IOLs were Tecnis ZCB00 (standard monofocal), Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 (EM), and Asqelio ETLIO130C (EDOF). At 6 months postoperatively, monocular and binocular uncorrected visual acuity were assessed at distance (6 m), intermediate (66 cm), and near (40 cm). Additional outcome measures included manifest refraction, binocular defocus curves, patient-reported halo and glare symptoms, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction.
resultsA total of 197 patients were included (78 monofocal, 65 EM, and 54 EDOF). Baseline demographic and preoperative ocular characteristics were comparable across groups. Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was similar among groups. Intermediate visual acuity was better in the EM and EDOF groups than in the monofocal group, with the best intermediate performance observed in the EDOF group. Near visual acuity remained limited in all groups but was better in the EDOF group than in the other groups. Defocus-curve findings were consistent with these results. Patient reported halo and glare scores were low and comparable across groups, whereas spectacle independence was highest in the extended depth-of-focus group.
conclusionIn this retrospective comparative case series, bilateral implantation of the Asqelio EDOF IOL was associated with better intermediate visual acuity and modestly better near visual acuity than implantation of the enhanced and standard monofocal IOLs, without compromising distance visual acuity or increasing patient-reported halo and glare at 6 months.
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.