JAMA ophthalmology · 2022
Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cho Jeong-Yeon, Won Yeo Kyoung, Park Jongyeop, Nam Jin Hyun, Hong Ji-Yoon, Min Serim, Kim Nahyun, Chung Tae-Young, Lee Eui-Kyung, Kwon Sun-Hong, Lim Dong Hui
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.
DATA SOURCES: Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.
STUDY SELECTION: Based on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Descriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.
RESULTS: This NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.
DATA SOURCES: Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.
STUDY SELECTION: Based on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Descriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.
RESULTS: This NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.