{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["97(40)"],"submitter":["Zhou H"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Introduction</h4>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether accommodative intraocular lenses (AC-IOLs) are superior for cataract patients compared with monofocal IOLs (MF-IOLs).<h4>Methods</h4>Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched through in August 2018 for AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract patients. Studies were pooled under either fixed-effects model or random-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standard mean difference (SMD) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was chosen as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, contrast sensitivity, and spectacle independence.<h4>Results</h4>Seventeen studies, involving a total of 1764 eyes, were included. Our results revealed that AC-IOLs improved DCNVA (SMD = -1.84, 95% CI = -2.56 to -1.11) and were associated with significantly greater anterior lens shift than MF-IOLs (WMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.23). Furthermore, spectacle independence was significantly better with AC-IOLs than with MF-IOLs (RR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.06-8.89). However, there was no significant difference in CDVA and contrast sensitivity between the 2 groups.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our study confirmed that AC-IOLs can provide cataract patients with DCNVA and result in more high levels of spectacle independence than MF-IOLs. Further studies with larger data set and well-designed models are required to validate our findings."],"journal":["Medicine"],"pagination":["e12693"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC6200466"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["The efficacy of accommodative versus monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis."],"pmcid":["PMC6200466"],"pubmed_authors":["Zhou F","Zhou H","Xu W","Zhu C"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"The efficacy of accommodative versus monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","description":"<h4>Introduction</h4>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether accommodative intraocular lenses (AC-IOLs) are superior for cataract patients compared with monofocal IOLs (MF-IOLs).<h4>Methods</h4>Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched through in August 2018 for AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract patients. Studies were pooled under either fixed-effects model or random-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standard mean difference (SMD) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was chosen as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, contrast sensitivity, and spectacle independence.<h4>Results</h4>Seventeen studies, involving a total of 1764 eyes, were included. Our results revealed that AC-IOLs improved DCNVA (SMD = -1.84, 95% CI = -2.56 to -1.11) and were associated with significantly greater anterior lens shift than MF-IOLs (WMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.23). Furthermore, spectacle independence was significantly better with AC-IOLs than with MF-IOLs (RR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.06-8.89). However, there was no significant difference in CDVA and contrast sensitivity between the 2 groups.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our study confirmed that AC-IOLs can provide cataract patients with DCNVA and result in more high levels of spectacle independence than MF-IOLs. Further studies with larger data set and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.","dates":{"release":"2018-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2018 Oct","modification":"2024-11-13T14:12:55.621Z","creation":"2019-03-27T00:05:57Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC6200466","cross_references":{"pubmed":["30290663"],"doi":["10.1097/MD.0000000000012693"]}}