Research accommodating lens clinical trials

When the six homogeneous RCTs were pooled, there was no significant difference in distance-corrected near visual acuity between accommodating intraocular lens and monofocal intraocular lens.Accommodating intraocular lens were associated with significantly greater anterior lens shift than monofocal intraocular lens (WMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.24; four RCTs).Five trials scored 6 or more out of 10 and were considered to be of adequate quality.Most trials did not report the method of allocation concealment, methods of blinding, or an acceptable rate of drop-outs. The duration of follow-up ranged from four weeks to two years; six RCTs had follow-up of at least one year.The review question was clearly defined in terms of study design, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest.The authors searched three databases for relevant trial, including two controlled trial registers, reducing the potential for publication bias.

research accommodating lens clinical trials-1research accommodating lens clinical trials-13research accommodating lens clinical trials-68research accommodating lens clinical trials-7

There were no statistically significant differences in glare (two RCTs) or contrast sensitivity (two RCTs) between accommodating intraocular lens and monofocal intraocular lens.Secondary outcomes of interest were pilocarpine-induced anterior chamber displacements, reading speed, glare, contrast sensitivity, spectacle independence, and adverse effects.Trial locations included France, Italy, Austria, Germany, Japan and the UK.Mean differences in outcomes between accommodating intraocular lens and monofocal intraocular lens were extracted by two reviewers independently, disagreements were resolved by discussion.Where data were missing from included trials, the authors of the trials were contacted.

Leave a Reply