Extended depth of focus versus trifocal for intraocular lens implantation: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims/Purpose: To compare the extended depth of focus (EDOF) versus trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients undergoing IOL implantation. Methods: An electronic search was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to include studies comparing EDOF versus trifocal IOLs. Refraction and visual acuity were primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included defocus curves, intraocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity (CS), quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire score, haloes and glare, spectacle independence and patient satisfaction. Results: A total of 22 studies enrolling 2200 eyes were identified. Trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in sphere (mean difference [MD] = −0.23; p = 0.001) and spherical equivalence (MD = −0.11, p = 0.0001) compared to EDOF IOL. No difference was observed in cylinder (MD = −0.03, p = 0.25) or astigmatism. Trifocal IOL had superior near visual acuity outcomes, namely uncorrected near visual acuity (MD = 0.12, p < 0.00001) and distance‐corrected near visual acuity (MD = 0.12, p = 0.002). Post‐operative corrected distance visual acuity (MD = −0.01, p = 0.01) was significantly improved for the EDOF group, although no difference was noted in post‐operative uncorrected distance visual acuity (MD = 0.00, p = 0.84), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (MD = 0.01, p = 0.68) or distance‐corrected intermediate visual acuity (MD = −0.01, p = 0.39). Defocus curve favoured trifocal IOLs at near vision and EDOF IOLs at intermediate vision. Ocular aberration, CS, haloes (odds ratio = 0.64, p = 0.10), glare and patient satisfaction were not statistically significant between the groups. The trifocal IOL was associated with an improved QoV questionnaire score (MD = 1.24, p = 0.03) and spectacle independence (odds ratio = 0.26, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Trifocal IOLs improved uncorrected near visual acuity compared to EDOF IOLs. Uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuity, halos and glare were not statistically different between both groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".