ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Patient Satisfaction with a Virtual Reality Education Tool for Advanced Technology Intraocular Lenses: A Retrospective Multi-Center Analysis.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of a virtual reality (VR) education tool on the adoption of advanced technology intraocular lenses (ATIOLs) and patient satisfaction among individuals undergoing cataract surgery. Setting: Five ophthalmology centers across the United States. Design: Retrospective, non-randomized, multi-center study. Methods: A total of 609 patients from five surgical centers were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on the education modality utilized during their cataract evaluation appointment: a VR group (n = 289) that received education using a VR headset and a control group (n = 320) that received standard verbal education from providers. The primary outcome measured was the rate of ATIOL selection at the initial cataract evaluation. Secondary outcomes included patient feedback on the VR experience, assessed via follow-up surveys at one week after evaluation and three months post-operatively. Results: ATIOL selection was significantly higher in the VR group compared to the control group. Overall, 165 of 289 patients (57.1%) in the VR group chose an ATIOL versus 91 of 320 patients (28.4%) in the control group (p < 0.001), representing an approximately two-fold increase in adoption. In the VR group, 83.6% of patients reported that the headset was easy or very easy to use. At three months post-operatively, 90% of survey respondents stated that their vision closely resembled what they saw in the VR simulation, and 90% indicated they would recommend the VR educational tool to others. Conclusion: VR may be an effective educational tool for enhancing patient understanding and satisfaction during IOL selection for cataract surgery. Its use was associated with increased adoption of ATIOLs and increased levels of patient-reported satisfaction. VR-based education may help set more accurate expectations for postoperative vision, potentially improving overall patient satisfaction with cataract surgery.
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.