ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Visual, Refractive, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Bilateral Implantation of an Enhanced Monofocal IOL: An Exploratory Comparison of Achieved Mini-Monovision and Bilateral Emmetropia.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes following bilateral implantation of partial-depth-of-field enhanced monofocal IOL in subjects achieving bilateral emmetropia vs mini-monovision. Patients and Methods: This prospective, non-interventional, multicenter, cross-sectional study included subjects who had undergone cataract surgery and implantation of enVista Aspire IOL. For the post hoc analysis, patients were classified into bilateral emmetropia (BE) or mini-monovision (MM) based on achieved postoperative manifest refraction. Postoperative assessments included visual outcomes, manifest refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity function, and patient-reported outcomes of questionnaires (AIOLIS and NAVQ). Results: In the BE group (N = 49), the mean MRSE in the first and the second operated eye was -0.18 ± 0.26 D and -0.11 ± 0.26 D, respectively, and the mean UDVA was 0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR and 0.05 ± 0.12 logMAR, respectively. Mean UIVA in the first- and second-operated eyes of the BE group was ~0.23 logMAR, and mean UNVA was ~0.46 logMAR. In the MM group (N = 21), with the mean MRSE of -0.33 ± 0.17 D, the mean UDVA in the distance eye was 0.11 ± 0.12 logMAR. With a mean MRSE of -0.96 ± 0.34 D, mean UIVA and UNVA of the intermediate eye were 0.13 ± 0.09 logMAR and 0.29 ± 0.16 logMAR, respectively. The defocus curve showed 0.2 logMAR or better visual acuity up to a myopic defocus of ~-1.25 D. A higher proportion (~14 to 31%) of subjects in the MM group reported "no or little difficulty" with various intermediate- to near-vision-related tasks. The frequency and bothersomeness of visual symptoms were similar between the two groups. A total of 85.7% of subjects in the MM group were "completely to very satisfied" with their overall postoperative vision compared to the BE group (77.6%). Conclusion: The MM group demonstrated improved intermediate and near visual performance and favorable patient-reported outcomes.
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.