ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Prospective Randomized Study of Visual Outcomes with Mini-Monovision Between the Light-Adjustable Lens and Clareon Monofocal Toric Intraocular Lens.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- Visual, Refractive, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Bilateral Implantation of an Enhanced Monofocal IOL: An Exploratory Comparison of Achieved Mini-Monovision and Bilateral Emmetropia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare binocular visual outcomes between the Light-Adjustable Lens (LAL) and the Clareon monofocal toric intraocular lens when both are targeting mini-monovision. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-arm, multi-surgeon study. Subjects were evaluated at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Data collected included monocular and binocular uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuities at distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (66 cm; UIVA, DCIVA), and near (40 cm; UNVA, DCNVA), higher order aberrations (HOA), administration of the Patient-Reported Spectacle Independence Questionnaire (PRSIQ), manifest refraction, monocular and binocular defocus curve, and the postoperative number of visits and days to release of care. Results: Seventy patients in the Clareon group and 68 in the LAL group completed the study. At three months, Clareon was non-inferior to LAL for all binocular corrected and uncorrected visual acuities except UNVA. Spectacle independence for distance, intermediate, and near were 91% (64/70), 87% (61/70), and 33% (23/70) (Clareon) vs 93% (63/68), 94% (64/68), and 43% (29/68) (LAL). Routine care release took 31.7 ± 13.0 days (Clareon) vs 53.9 ± 17.5 days (LAL) (p < 0.001). Both groups had high refractive accuracy at 3 months, however, outcomes with Clareon remained stable from 1 to 3 months, while LAL improved with UV treatment. Conclusion: Results of this study suggest similarly good refractive and visual outcomes for both Clareon monofocal/toric and LAL when both are targeting same mini-monovision.
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.