ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Study of the Visual Outcomes of Two Common Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses in a Matched Cohort.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare monocular and binocular visual acuity, refractive outcomes, and visual symptom outcomes at one month postoperatively between two recently released trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) models: the TECNIS Odyssey (Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) and the Clareon PanOptix Pro (Alcon Vision, Fort Worth, TX, USA). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of either the TECNIS Odyssey or Clareon PanOptix Pro IOL. The groups were matched 1:1 using nearest-neighbor matching based on baseline corneal astigmatism to correct for baseline imbalance. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for inter-eye correlation. Primary outcomes included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and manifest refraction. Patient-reported photic symptoms (glare, halos, photophobia, and night vision difficulty) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results A total of 168 patients (246 eyes) were initially included: 50 patients (66 eyes) in the Odyssey IOL group and 118 patients (180 eyes) in the PanOptix Pro IOL group. After matching, a total of 130 eyes (65 eyes per IOL group) were analyzed. Mean monocular UDVA was not significantly different between the Odyssey and PanOptix Pro groups (logMAR 0.10 ± 0.11 vs. 0.13 ± 0.13; p = 0.29), although Odyssey eyes were more likely to achieve the 20/50 or better threshold (56 eyes, 100% vs. 49 eyes, 89.1%; p = 0.013). The Odyssey group demonstrated a small but statistically significant advantage in CDVA (logMAR -0.001 ± 0.097 vs. 0.039 ± 0.08; p = 0.034). However, UNVA, binocular visual acuity, and manifest refraction did not differ significantly between the IOL groups. Patient-reported visual symptoms remained below a 15% incidence and were statistically comparable between groups. Conclusions TECNIS Odyssey and Clareon PanOptix Pro demonstrated generally comparable early visual, refractive, and photic outcomes in this retrospective matched cohort of uncomplicated eyes. A small but statistically significant difference in CDVA favored Odyssey, although its clinical relevance remains uncertain.
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.