↓ Skip to main content

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003169.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha R de Silva, Jennifer R Evans, Varo Kirthi, Mohammed Ziaei, Martin Leyland

Abstract

Good unaided distance visual acuity (VA) is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs. To assess the visual effects of multifocal IOLs in comparison with the current standard treatment of monofocal lens implantation. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016. All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. We also considered trials comparing multifocal IOLs with "monovision" whereby one eye is corrected for distance vision and one eye corrected for near vision. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE. We found 20 eligible trials that enrolled 2230 people with data available on 2061 people (3194 eyes). These trials were conducted in Europe (13), China (three), USA (one), Middle East (one), India (one) and one multicentre study in Europe and the USA. Most of these trials compared multifocal with monofocal lenses; two trials compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask participants and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias.There was moderate-certainty evidence that the distance acuity achieved with multifocal lenses was not different to that achieved with monofocal lenses (unaided VA worse than 6/6: pooled RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.03; eyes = 682; studies = 8). People receiving multifocal lenses may achieve better near vision (RR for unaided near VA worse than J3/J4 was 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.58; eyes = 782; studies = 8). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and high heterogeneity (I(2) = 93%) although all included studies favoured multifocal lenses with respect to this outcome.People receiving multifocal lenses may be less spectacle dependent (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; eyes = 1000; studies = 10). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias and evidence of publication bias (skewed funnel plot). There was also high heterogeneity (I(2) = 67%) but all studies favoured multifocal lenses. We did not additionally downgrade for this.Adverse subjective visual phenomena were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with a multifocal IOL compared with monofocals (RR for glare 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93; eyes = 544; studies = 7, low-certainty evidence and RR for haloes 3.58, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.46; eyes = 662; studies = 7; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was no evidence for any important differences in distance VA between the groups (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; eyes = 186; studies = 1), unaided intermediate VA (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; eyes = 181; studies = 1) and unaided near VA (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; eyes = 186; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. People receiving multifocal lenses were less likely to be spectacle dependent (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53; eyes = 262; studies = 2) but more likely to report problems with glare (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.73; eyes = 187; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. In one study, the investigators noted that more people in the multifocal group underwent IOL exchange in the first year after surgery (6 participants with multifocal vs 0 participants with monovision). Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs although there is uncertainty as to the size of the effect. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs, such as glare and haloes, will vary between people. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Pakistan 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 17%
Other 20 15%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 31 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#412,960
of 14,282,317 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,133
of 10,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,049
of 379,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,282,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 379,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.