ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Femtosecond Laser-assisted Cataract Surgery and Phacoemulsification in Patients with Diabetes: A Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article systematically review and compare the efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and traditional phacoemulsification (PE) in patients with diabetes. A systematic search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception to December 2024. Studies comparing FLACS with PE in patients with diabetes were included. The primary outcomes were central corneal thickness (CCT) and endothelial cell density (ECD), while the secondary outcomes included effective phaco time (EPT), surgical complications, and visual outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was used to assess quality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ROBINS-I for cohort studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective studies. Six studies involving 345 eyes met the inclusion criteria: one RCT, two cohort studies, one prospective study, and two retrospective studies. In the RCT, FLACS demonstrated significantly higher postoperative ECD compared to PE (mean difference: 423.55 cells/mm²; 95% CI: 199.89 to 647.21;
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.