SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2026
Comparison of visual outcomes of enhanced monofocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in International 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesThis meta-analysis evaluated and compared postoperative visual function and other outcomes between enhanced and conventional monofocal intraocular lens (IOL).
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that compared both IOL types. The primary outcome measures included monocular or binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), corrected near visual acuity (CNVA), photic phenomenon, contrast sensitivity and Catquest-9SF questionnaire results.
resultsThis meta-analysis incorporated 11 randomized controlled trials, comprising 566 and 577 eyes in the enhanced monofocal (EM) and the conventional monofocal (CM) groups, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in UDVA or CDVA between the two groups (P>0.05). However, the EM group demonstrated significantly better UIVA and DCIVA compared to the CM group (P<0.001). Additionally, the EM group exhibited superior UNVA and CNVA relative to the CM group (P<0.001). Both groups showed comparable results for photic phenomena, contrast sensitivity, and Catquest-9SF questionnaire results.
conclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis provide evidence that enhanced monofocal IOLs offer superior intermediate visual acuity while maintaining visual performance comparable to that of conventional monofocal IOLs. EM IOLs may be a viable option for patients with cataracts seeking improved intermediate vision. Although EM IOLs yielded statistically better UNVA outcomes, the overall visual performance was still insufficient to achieve satisfactory near vision and complete spectacle independence, indicating limited clinical significance. The protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD420251232044).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42530675What 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.