ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of visual quality between the refractive-diffractive hybrid bifocal EDOF and the refractive-diffractive hybrid trifocal IOL.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To comparatively analyze visual quality after cataract surgery with implantation of the extended depth of focus (EDOF) refractive-diffractive hybrid bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) AM3UH and the refractive-diffractive hybrid trifocal intraocular lens AT LISA tri 839MP. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective and prospective bidirectional cohort study. Sixty-nine patients (69 eyes) with AM3UH IOL implantation were enrolled in the AM3UH group. Sixty-two patients (62 eyes) implanted with AT LISA tri 839MP IOL were enrolled in the 839MP group. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, logMAR), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, logMAR), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA, logMAR) and best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were assessed before and 3 months after surgery. The visual function index 11R (VF-11R) was used to evaluate the quality of life after cataract surgery. Light interference, spectacle independence and postoperative satisfaction were evaluated by questionnaires. Results: The preoperative UDVA of AM3UH group and 839MP group was (0.93 ± 0.38) logMAR and (0.90 ± 0.47) logMAR, respectively. At 3 months postoperatively, the UDVA, UIVA, UNVA and BCDVA of the AM3UH group were (0.14 ± 0.19) logMAR, (0.13 ± 0.12) logMAR, (0.15 ± 0.1) logMAR, and (0.09 ± 0.11) logMAR, respectively; and those of the 839MP group were (0.90 ± 0.47) logMAR, (0.12 ± 0.08) logMAR, (0.07 ± 0.08) logMAR, (0.12 ± 0.06) logMAR, and (0.05 ± 0.04) logMAR, respectively. Both IOLs (AM3UH and 839MP) significantly improved postoperative UDVA. No significant differences were observed between groups regarding distance, near, or best-corrected distance visual acuity ( Conclusion: Both lenses offer good visual quality and increased spectacle independence. The AT LISA tri 839MP provides superior intermediate vision and related patient satisfaction, with a similar overall side-effect profile.
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.