Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jul 10;7(7):CD014891.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014891.pub2.

Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

Shokufeh Tavassoli  1 , Hadi Ziaei  2 , Mohammad E Yadegarfar  3 , Akilesh Gokul  4 , Ashleigh Kernohan  5 , Jennifer R Evans  6 , Mohammed Ziaei  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

Shokufeh Tavassoli et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Cataract, defined as an opacity of the lens in one or both eyes, is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Cataract may initially be treated with new spectacles, but often surgery is required, which involves removing the cataract and placing a new artificial lens, usually made from hydrophobic acrylic. Recent advancements in intraocular lens (IOL) technology have led to the emergence of a diverse array of implantable lenses that aim to minimise spectacle dependence at all distances (near, intermediate, and distance). To assess the relative merits of these lenses, measurements of visual acuity are needed. Visual acuity is a measurement of the sharpness of vision at a distance of 6 metres (or 20 feet). Normal vision is 6/6 (or 20/20). The Jaegar eye card is used to measure near visual acuity. J1 is the smallest text and J2 is considered equivalent to 6/6 (or 20/20) for near vision.

Objectives: To compare visual outcomes after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) to those of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs. To produce a brief economic commentary summarising recent economic evaluations that compare trifocal IOLs with EDOF IOLs.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries on 15 June 2022. For our economic evaluation, we also searched MEDLINE and Embase using economic search filters to 15 June 2022, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) from 1968 up to and including 31 December 2014. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches.

Selection criteria: We included studies comparing trifocal and EDOF IOLs in adults undergoing cataract surgery. We did not include studies involving people receiving IOLs for correction of refractive error alone (or refractive lens exchange in the absence of cataract).

Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from the reports. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included five studies that compared trifocal and EDOF lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. Three trifocal lenses (AcrySof IQ PanOptix, ATLISA Tri 839MP, FineVision Micro F) and one EDOF lens (TECNIS Symfony ZXR00) were evaluated. The studies took place in Europe and North America. Follow-up ranged from three to six months. Of the 239 enroled participants, 233 (466 eyes) completed follow-up and were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 68.2 years, and 64% of participants were female. In general, the risk of bias in the studies was unclear as methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported, and we judged one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as low, downgrading for the risk of bias and for imprecision. In two studies involving a total of 254 people, there was little or no difference between trifocal and EDOF lenses for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6. Sixty per cent of participants in both groups had uncorrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.88 to 1.27). Thirty-one per cent of the trifocal group and 38% of the EDOF group had corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39). In one study of 60 people, there were fewer cases of uncorrected near visual acuity worse than J2 in the trifocal group (3%) compared with the EDOF group (30%) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65). In two studies, participants were asked about spectacle independence using subjective questionnaires. There was no evidence of either lens type being superior. One further study of 60 participants reported, "overall, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence", but did not categorise this by lens type. All studies included postoperative patient-reported visual function, which was measured using different questionnaires. Irrespective of the questionnaire used, both types of lenses scored well, and there was little evidence of any important differences between them. Two studies included patient-reported ocular aberrations (glare and halos). The outcomes were reported in different ways and could not be pooled; individually, these studies were too small to detect meaningful differences in glare and halos between groups. One study reported no surgical complications. Three studies did not mention surgical complications. One study reported YAG capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification (PCO) in one participant (one eye) in each group. One study reported no PCO. Two studies did not report PCO. One study reported that three participants (one trifocal and two EDOF) underwent laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) to correct residual myopic refractive error or astigmatism. One study reported a subset of participants who were considering laser enhancement at the end of the study period (nine trifocal and two EDOF). Two studies did not report laser enhancement rates. No economic evaluation studies were identified for inclusion in this review.

Authors' conclusions: Distance visual acuity after cataract surgery may be similar whether the lenses implanted are trifocal IOLs or EDOF (TECNIS Symfony) IOLs. People receiving trifocal IOLs may achieve better near vision and may be less dependent on spectacles for near vision. Both lenses were reported to have adverse subjective visual phenomena, such as glare and halos, with no meaningful difference detected between lenses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

ST: none known HZ: none known MY: none known AG: none known AK: none known JE: none known MZ: none known

Figures

1
1
PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process
2
2
Summary of risk of bias judgements by study and domain
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 1: Uncorrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 2: Corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 3: Uncorrected distance visual acuity (logMAR)
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 4: Corrected distance visual acuity (logMAR)
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 5: Uncorrected near visual acuity worse than J2
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 6: Uncorrected near visual acuity (logMAR)
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 7: Corrected near visual acuity (logMAR)
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 8: Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity worse than 6/9
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 9: Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (logMAR)
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 10: Corrected intermediate visual acuity (logMAR)
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 11: Modulation transfer function (MTF) at 40 cycles per degree, 3 mm pupil diameter
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 12: Contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 13: Defocus curve: 0.0 D (far), LogMAR visual acuity
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 14: Defocus curve: ‐1.5 D (intermediate), LogMAR visual acuity
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 15: Defocus curve: ‐3.0 D (intermediate), LogMAR visual acuity
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 16: Any adverse outcome: posterior capsular opacification (PCO)
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 17: LASEK after all visits for residual refractive error or astigmatism
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1: Trifocal compared with extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, Outcome 18: Consideration of excimer laser augmentation at end of study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014891

References

References to studies included in this review

Cochener 2018 {published data only}
    1. Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C. A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2018;34(8):507‐14. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cochener B. Randomised trial of trifocal vs EDOF. Email to: M Ziaei 17 February 2022.
Gil 2020 {published data only}
    1. Gil MA, Varon C, Cardona G, Buil JA. Visual acuity and defocus curves with six multifocal intraocular lenses. International Ophthalmology 2020;40(2):393-401. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Monaco 2017 {published data only}
    1. Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F, Poscia A, Ruggi G, Scialdone A. Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: trifocal versus extended range of vision. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2017;43(6):737-47. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Scheepers 2022 {published data only}
    1. Scheepers MA, Bunce CB, Michaelides M, Hall B. Clinical outcomes of a trifocal compared with an EDOF IOL following bilateral cataract surgery. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 2022;22:00169-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2022.05.005] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Webers 2020 {published data only}
    1. NCT03117426. A randomised evaluation of visual function after bilateral implantation of two types of presbyopia-correcting IOLs. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03117426 (first received 18 April 2017).
    1. Saelens IE, Webers V, Bauer NJ, Creten OJ, Nuijts RM. Clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing two presbyopia correcting IOL designs: symfony extended depth of focus IOL vs AT LISA tri(focal) 839MP IOL. Acta Ophthalmologica 2018;96:35.
    1. Webers VS, Bauer NJ, Saelens IE, Creten OJ, Berendschot TT, Van den Biggelaar FJ, et al. Comparison of the intermediate distance of a trifocal IOL with an extended depth-of-focus IOL: results of a prospective randomized trial. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2020;46(2):193‐203. [DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000012] - DOI - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Lin 2019 {published data only}
    1. Lin Y, Liang X, Guo J, Chen X, Dong Z. Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal IOL and EDOF IOL. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (ARVO abstract) 2019;60(9):4288.
NCT03060954 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03060954. Non-inferiority study comparing MINI WELL READY® and FineVision® in patients with cataract surgery. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03060954 (first received 23 February 2017).
NCT03111550 {published data only}
    1. NCT03111550. Clinical investigation of the next-generation intraocular lens. www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03111550 (first received 7 April 2017).
NCT04019691 {published data only}
    1. NCT04019691. Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04019691 (first received 12 July 2019).
NCT04522427 {published data only}
    1. NCT04522427. Study of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04522427 (first received 19 August 2020).
NCT04865016 {published data only}
    1. NCT04865016. Low add multifocal versus extended depth of focus intraocular lens. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04865016 (first received 27 April 2016).
Paik 2020 {published data only}
    1. Paik DW, Park JS, Yang CM, Lim DH, Chung TY. Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses. Scientific Reports 2020;10(1):14832. [DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69318-y] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Palomino Bautista 2020 {published data only}
    1. Palomino-Bautista C, Sanchez-Jean R, Carmona-Gonzalez D, Pinero DP, Molina-Martin A. Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses. International Ophthalmology 2020;40(2):351-59. [DOI: 10.1007/s10792-019-01186-6] - DOI - PubMed
Rementeria Capelo 2021 {published data only}
    1. Rementeria-Capelo LA, Garcia-Perez JL, Gros-Otero J, Carrillo V, Perez-Lanzac J, Contreras I. Real-world evaluation of visual results and patient satisfaction for extended range of focus intraocular lenses compared to trifocal lenses. International Ophthalmology 2021;41(1):163-72. [DOI: 10.1007/s10792-020-01563-6] - DOI - PubMed
Ruiz Mesa 2018 {published data only}
    1. Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos M. A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. European Journal of Ophthalmology 2018;28(2):182-87. [DOI: 10.5301/ejo.5001029] - DOI - PubMed
Savini 2018 {published data only}
    1. Savini G, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Balducci N, Barboni P. Visual performance of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens compared to a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2018;34(4):228-35. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180125-01] - DOI - PubMed
Sevik 2021 {published data only}
    1. Sevik MO, Turhan SA, Toker E. Clinical outcomes with a low add multifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lenses both implanted with mini-monovision. Eye 2022;36(6):1168-77. - PMC - PubMed
Song 2020 {published data only}
    1. Song JE, Khoramnia R, Son HS, Knorz MC, Choi CY. Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL and mix-and-match implantation of a bifocal IOL and an extended depth of focus IOL. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2020;36(8):528‐35. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20200616-01] - DOI - PubMed
Tarib 2019 {published data only}
    1. Tarib I, Kasier I, Herbers C, Hagen P, Breyer D, Kaymak H, et al. Comparison of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of an EDOF IOL and a mix-and-match approach. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2019;35(7):408‐16. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20190417-02] - DOI - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Lu 2021 {published data only}
    1. Lu M, Zhu J, Xiao Z-F. Comparison of visual quality between extended depth and trifocal intraocular lens implantation. International Eye Science 2021;21(7):1167-9.
NCT03726606 {published data only}
    1. NCT03726606. A comparison of the visual performance of trifocal versus extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03726606 (first received 31 October 2018).

Additional references

Akella 2018
    1. Akella SS, Juthani VV. Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses for presbyopia. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2018;29(4):318–22. - PubMed
Alfonso 2010
    1. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Puchades C, Montés-Micó R. Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2010;36(5):733–9. - PubMed
Altman 1996
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Detecting skewness from summary information. BMJ 1996;313(7066):1200. - PMC - PubMed
Aluko  2020
    1. Aluko P, Graybill E, Craig D, Henderson C, Drummond M, Wilson ECF, et al, on behalf of the Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group. Chapter 20: Economic evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Ang 2012
    1. Ang M, Evans JR, Mehta JS. Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. Art. No: CD008811. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008811.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Carballo‐Alvarez 2015
    1. Carballo-Alvarez J, Vazquez-Molini JM, Sanz-Fernandez JC. Visual outcomes after bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmology 2015;14:26. - PMC - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Covidence. Version accessed prior to 17 December 2020. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. Available at covidence.org.
Cuq 2008
    1. Cuq C, Lafuma A, Jeanbat V, Berdeaux G. A European survey of patient satisfaction with spectacles after cataract surgery and the associated costs in four European countries (France, Germany, Spain, and Italy). Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2008;15(4):234-41. - PubMed
De Silva 2014
    1. De Silva SR, Riaz Y, Evans JR. Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 1. Art. No: CD008812. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008812.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
De Silva 2016
    1. De Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V, Ziaei M, Leyland M. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 12. Art. No: CD003169. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003169.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Domínguez‐Vicent 2016
    1. Domínguez-Vicent A, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Monsálvez-Romin D, Montés-Micó R. In vitro optical quality comparison of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses and 1 progressive multifocal intraocular lens. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2016;42(1):138–47. - PubMed
Evans 2020
    1. Evans JR, De Silva SR, Ziaei M, Kirthi V, Leyland MD. Outcomes in randomised controlled trials of multifocal lenses in cataract surgery: the case for development of a core outcome set. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2020;104(10):1345-9. - PubMed
Flaxman 2017
    1. Flaxman SR, Bourne RR, Resnikoff S, Ackland P, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990-2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Global Health 2017;5(12):e1221–34. - PubMed
Frost 1998
    1. Frost NA, Sparrow JM, Durant JS, Donovan JL, Peters TJ, Brookes ST. Development of a questionnaire for measurement of vision-related quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 1998;5(4):185-210. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130-6. - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed prior to 17 December 2020. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). Available at gradepro.org.
Guo 2021
    1. Guo Y, Wang Y, Hao R, Jiang X, Liu Z, Li X. Comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Ophthalmology 2021;2021:1115076. - PMC - PubMed
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924-6. - PMC - PubMed
Han 2023
    1. Han X, Zhang J, Liu Z, Tan X, Jin G, He M, et al. Real-world visual outcomes of cataract surgery based on population-based studies: a systematic review. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2023;107(8):1056-65. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2002
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539-58. - PubMed
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Higgins 2020a
    1. Higgins JPT, Li T, Deeks JJ (editors). Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Karam 2023
    1. Karam M, Alkhowaiter N, Alkhabbaz A, Aldubaikhi A, Alsaif A, Shareef E, et al. Extended depth of focus versus trifocal for intraocular lens implantation: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2023;251:52-70. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.01.024.] - DOI - PubMed
Khairallah 2015
    1. Khairallah M, Kahloun R, Bourne R. Number of people blind or visually impaired by cataract worldwide and in world regions, 1990 to 2010. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2015;56(11):6762–9. - PubMed
McAlinden 2010
    1. McAlinden C, Pesudovs K, Moore JE. The development of an instrument to measure quality of vision: the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2010;51(11):5537-45. - PubMed
McKenzie 2020
    1. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Megiddo‐Barnir 2023
    1. Megiddo-Barnir E, Alió JL. Latest development in extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses: an update. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology (Philadelphia, PA) 2023;12(1):58-79. - PubMed
Page 2023
    1. Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-13.
Pascolini 2012
    1. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;96(5):614–8. - PubMed
Rampat 2021
    1. Rampat R, Gatinel D. Multifocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses in 2020. Ophthalmology 2021;128(11):e164-85. - PubMed
Review Manager [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.4.1. Copenhagen: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020.
RevMan 2024 [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 7.9.2. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2024. Available at revman.cochrane.org.
Riaz 2013
    1. Riaz Y, De Silva SR, Evans JR. Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. Art. No: CD008813. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008813.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Romano 2023
    1. Romano V, Madrid-Costa D, Alfonso JF, Alio J, Allan B, Angunawela R, et al. Recommendation for presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: a Delphi Consensus Statement by the ESASO study group. American Journal of Opthalmology 2023;253:169-80. - PubMed
Savini 2018
    1. Savini G, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Balducci N, Barboni P. Visual performance of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens compared to a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2018;34(4):228-35. - PubMed
Steinberg 1994
    1. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, et al. The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Archives of Ophthalmology 1994;112(5):630-38. - PubMed
Zhong 2021
    1. Zhong Y, Wang K, Yu X, Xin L, Yao K. Comparison of trifocal or hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 2021;11(1):6699. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Tavassoli 2021
    1. Tavassoli S, Ziaei H, Yadegarfar ME, Gokul A, Kernohan A, Evans JR, et al. Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses for cataract extraction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 3. Art. No: CD014891. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014891] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources