Adv Ther (2017) 34:1815–1839 DOI 10.1007/s12325-017-0579-7 REVIEW Monovision Versus Multifocality for Presbyopia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials . . . ˇ . Lidija Kelava Hrvoje Baric ´ Mladen Bus ˇic ´ Ivan Cima Vladimir Trkulja Received: May 15, 2017 / Published online: July 3, 2017 Springer Healthcare Ltd. 2017 monovision to any multifocality method or ABSTRACT comparing different monovision/multifocality methods to each other that enabled direct or Introduction: Refractive surgery in presbyopia indirect comparisons between particular tends to achieve spectacle independence with monovision and particular multifocality proce- minimal optical disturbances. We compared dures in presbyopic patients undergoing monovision to multifocality procedures cataract-related or unrelated surgery in respect regarding these outcomes. to spectacle independence, unaided binocular Methods: We conducted a systematic review of visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), and published (till November 21, 2016) randomized adverse events. controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any Results: Three trials comparing monovision (monofocal lenses, LASIK) to multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs; Isert refractive or Tecnis diffractive) and 6 comparing other Enhanced content To view enhanced content for this MFIOLs to Tecnis were included (1–12 months article go to http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/ duration). Spectacle independence. All reporting 40A8F0604EF5CA24. trials were of sufﬁcient quality. Directly, pseu-
Advances in Therapy – Springer Journals
Published: Jul 3, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud