ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Digital Visual Acuity and Reading Performance with Positive and Negative Display Polarities After Bilateral Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation: A Longitudinal Observational Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traditional acuity charts may not fully capture visual performance during everyday digital device use. Digital screen-based assessments may better reflect contemporary visual demands, and display polarity may influence reading performance in patients with multifocal intraocular lenses (MF-IOLs). Furthermore, display polarities differ in luminance and contrast characteristics, which may influence pupil size and reading performance in patients with MF-IOLs. We aimed to compare digital visual acuity (VA) between positive (black-on-white) and negative (white-on-black) display polarities and evaluated reading speed and critical print size (CPS) in patients with bilateral diffractive MF-IOLs. Methods: In this non-randomized, observational study, consecutive participants who underwent bilateral diffractive MF-IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptix) implantation with repeated assessments at postoperative day 1, week 1, month 1, and month 3. Monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near VA were assessed using a Snellen chart and MNREAD application on an iPad. Reading acuity between display polarities was compared using paired Results: Twenty-six participants completed the study. At 3 months, uncorrected distance VA was -0.084 ± 0.079 logMAR. Digital VA at 60 cm and 40 cm was -0.115 ± 0.104 and -0.008 ± 0.084 logMAR, respectively. Reading performance did not differ significantly between positive and negative display polarities at 60 cm (p = 0.055). Mean CPS was 0.173 ± 0.0168 logMAR at 1 month and 0.238 ± 0.100 logMAR at 3 months. Mean reading speed was 84.63 ± 27.46 WPM at 1 month and 101.89 ± 72.62 WPM at 3 months (p = 0.133). Conclusions: Bilateral diffractive MF-IOLs provided favorable digital and conventional visual outcomes with small differences observed and were not considered clinically meaningful. Digital reading assessments provided complementary functional information, including reading speed and critical print size, without replacing conventional VA assessment.
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.