Review Article
Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
Table 2
Summary of the main outcomes included in the meta-analysis.
| | Outcome | Risk for Mplus | Number of participants (studies) | Importance | Quality | Comments |
| | UDVA | The intervention group was 0.02 higher (0.01 lower to 0.04 higher) | 811 (9 studies) | CRITICAL | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ high | See subgroup analysis in Figure 2(a) | | CDVA | The intervention group was 0.03 higher (0 to 0.07 higher) | 578 (8 studies) | CRITICAL | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ moderate | See subgroup analysis in Figure 2(b) | | UIVA | The intervention group was 0.16 lower (0.26 to 0.05 lower) | 438 (6 studies) | CRITICAL | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ high | See subgroup analysis in Figure 3 | | UNVA | The intervention group was 0 higher (0.04 lower to 0.04 higher) | 578 (8 studies) | CRITICAL | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ moderate | See subgroup analysis in Figure 4(a) | | DCNVA | The intervention group was 0.02 lower (0.08 lower to 0.05 higher) | 578 (8 studies) | CRITICAL | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ moderate | See subgroup analysis in Figure 4(b) | | CNVA | The intervention group was 0.04 higher (0.01 to 0.07 higher) | 258 (4 studies) | CRITICAL | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ ⊝ low | See subgroup analysis in Figure 4(c) | | HOA | The intervention group was 0.34 higher (0.15 to 0.53 higher) | 258 (4 studies) | IMPORTANT | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ high | See subgroup analysis in Figure 5(a) | | MTF cut-off | The intervention group was 2.46 lower (4.84 to 0.07 lower) | 258 (4 studies) | IMPORTANT | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ moderate | See subgroup analysis in Figure 5(b) | | Strehl ratio | The intervention group was 0.4 standard deviations lower (0.65 to 0.15 lower) | 258 (4 studies) | IMPORTANT | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ moderate | See subgroup analysis in Figure 5(c) |
|
|
UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; UIVA = uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity.
|
