Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42564736›Full record

Trial reportFrontiers in ophthalmology2026

Comparing visual outcomes in matched patients receiving a low cylinder power toric IOL or a non-toric IOL.

Kjell G Gundersen, Richard Potvin, Steffen A Østenstad

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06717607 (Comparing Visual Outcomes in Matched Patients Receiving a Low Cylinder Power Toric IOL or a Non-toric IOL), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06717607 nacompletednot on this map

Comparing Visual Outcomes in Matched Patients Receiving a Low Cylinder Power Toric IOL or a Non-toric IOL

TypeinterventionalSponsorIfocus OyeklinikkRan2022 to 2024Enrolled43ConditionsCataract and IOL SurgeryArmslow cylinder toric IOL, non-toric IOL implantation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kjell G GundersenIFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway.
Richard PotvinScience in Vision, Frisco, TX, United States.
Steffen A ØstenstadIFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate visual and refractive outcomes of the Alcon Clareon Setting: Single ophthalmology clinic in Haugesund, Norway. Methods: This was an exploratory single site randomized, unmasked, prospective clinical trial. The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06717607, registered retrospectively on 12/5/2024). Patients presenting for routine cataract surgery in one or both eyes, where at least one eye qualified for implantation of the T2 lens, were enrolled. Qualifying eyes were randomized to a T2 lens or a non-toric lens. Subjects were evaluated monocularly before surgery and three months postoperative. Testing included uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (VA), the manifest refraction, low contrast VA (photopic and mesopic, with and without glare) and contrast sensitivity (photopic and mesopic). These latter two tests were conducted with the distance correction in place. Results: Fifty eyes of 43 subjects were successfully enrolled from 6/2022 to 5/2024, including 30 eyes (25 subjects) randomized to the toric IOL and 20 eyes (18 subjects) to the non-toric IOL. Analysis included all enrolled eyes. Subjects were matched for age (p = 0.59), sex (p = 0.30), mean keratometry (p = 0.44), anterior corneal astigmatism (p = 0.97), axial length (p = 0.12) and anterior chamber depth (p = 0.40). Postoperatively, there was no statistically significant difference in the spherical equivalent refraction (p = 0.08). Residual refractive cylinder was statistically significantly lower in the T2 group (0.22 ± 0.22 D vs. 0.59 ± 0.28 D, p < 0.01). The T2 group also had statistically significantly better uncorrected logMAR distance VA than the non-toric group (0.00 ± 0.08 vs. 0.09 ± 0.13, p < 0.01). Low contrast VA was not statistically significantly different between the two lens types under any test condition (p = 0.49 or higher in all cases), nor were photopic or mesopic contrast sensitivity (p = 0.71 and p = 0.63, respectively). Conclusions: Use of the low cylinder power toric IOL provided significantly better UDVA, with no significant differences in distance-corrected contrast sensitivity or low contrast acuity. The achieved cylinder correction was consistent with expectations. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT06717607.

Indexed as

astigmatismcataractClareonlow cylindertoric IOL

Identifiers

PMID42564736
PMCPMC13444364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.