SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of outcomes after SMILE using VISUMAX 800 and VISUMAX 500 for correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism between small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery performed using VisuMax 500 (SMILE group) and that using VisuMax 800 (SMILE Pro group). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 2026 to identify relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Primary outcomes were postoperative efficacy, safety, and predictability at the end of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the postoperative high-order aberrations (HOAs) parameters and the vector analysis parameters. Results: A total of nine studies including 1,692 eyes were involved, with 1,036 eyes undergoing SMILE surgery, 656 eyes undergoing SMILE Pro surgery. All of the 9 selected studies were nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs) with the follow-up period ranged from 1 to 6 months. Compared with SMILE, SMILE Pro group had better stability of corrected vision (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.86). As for cylinder and vector analysis, SMILE group showed a marginally greater residual cylinder than the SMILE Pro group ( Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, we did not detect evidence of statistical difference between SMILE and SMILE Pro surgical procedures when used for the treatment of myopia and astigmatism. SMILE Pro using VISUMAX 800 provided more accurate refractive cylinder outcomes. Further multicentre studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are warranted to confirm VisuMax 800 system superior practical benefits in surgical workflow, refractive outcomes and patient comfort.
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.