ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Comparative analysis of subjective and objective visual quality after LASEK, FS-LASIK, and TransPRK.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare subjective and objective visual quality after three types of corneal refractive surgery (LASEK, FS-LASIK, and TransPRK). 150 patients (300 eyes) who underwent corneal refractive surgery were divided into three groups comprised of 45 patients (90 eyes) in the LASEK group, 55 patients (110 eyes) in the FS-LASIK group, and 50 patients (100 eyes) in the TransPRK group. Subjective evaluation included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), recorded in decimal notation, and the Quality-of-Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire. Objective optical quality was measured with the OQAS II double-pass analyzer (Visiometrics, Spain) in 50 eyes per group. All three surgical procedures-LASEK, FS-LASIK, and TransPRK-significantly improved overall UDVA from baseline. At 6 months postoperatively, UDVA after LASEK and FS-LASIK was significantly higher than at 1 month, and UDVA at 1 month was significantly better than preoperative levels (P < 0.05). At 1 month, UDVA was significantly better after TransPRK than after LASEK or FS-LASIK, but this difference was no longer present at 6 months. At 6 months, QIRC scores were significantly higher than preoperative values after FS-LASIK (P = 0.004) and TransPRK (P = 0.016), whereas the increase after LASEK was not significant (P = 0.157). All procedures were associated with improvements in subjective and objective visual quality measures; however, no statistically significant differences were observed among the three surgical techniques at six months. Objective optical quality indices were within the normal range in all three groups at 6 months and did not differ significantly between techniques. All procedures (LASEK, FS-LASIK, and TransPRK) were associated with improvements in subjective and objective visual quality and quality of life; however, no statistically significant differences were observed among the three surgical techniques at six months postoperatively.
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.