ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Toric versus Standard Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for Low Myopic Astigmatism: A 12-Month Retrospective 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
Background: Implantable collamer lens (ICL) and toric ICL (TICL) have shown effectiveness for myopic and astigmatic patients. This study aims to compare the visual and refractive outcomes of TICL and ICL implantation for low myopic astigmatism. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, non-consecutive, and non-randomized study included 124 eyes of 124 patients with low myopic astigmatism who underwent TICL or ICL implantation. Visual acuity, refractive outcomes, visual quality, and ocular parameters were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The surgical results were reported using standard graphs and double-angle astigmatism vector analysis. Results: Both groups demonstrated excellent safety (TICL: 1.28±0.18; ICL: 1.19±0.16) and efficacy (TICL: 1.21±0.19; ICL: 1.09±0.16), with high predictability for spherical equivalent refraction ( Conclusions: Both TICL and ICL are safe and effective for low myopic astigmatism (0.75-1.0 D). Although TICL yielded significantly lower residual astigmatism and higher uncorrected visual acuity than ICL, the nonrandomized design and selection bias necessitate caution in claiming comparative superiority. Toric correction for such low astigmatism should be individualized, integrating clinical benefits with economic and safety factors.
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.