ArticleCureus2025
Accuracy of Reported Sizes of the EVO/EVO+ Visian Implantable Collamer® Lenses.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess the variability between published manufacturer sizes and actual sizes measured in the operating room (OR) for Implantable Collamer® Lenses (ICLs) (STAAR Surgical, Monrovia, CA). Methods A prospective observational study was performed where the diagonal length of 50 ICLs from 50 consecutive cases was measured between June 26, 2023, and November 1, 2023. ICLs were positioned "face down" next to an OR ruler and photographed using the NGENUITY® 3D Visualization System (Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland). These images were processed in Adobe Photoshop 24.6 (Adobe Inc., San Jose, CA) to eliminate perspective distortions, and the images were scaled using known dimensions of the OR ruler. Accurate diagonal measurements were taken using the caliper tool. Measurements were repeated across ICLs in the other direction to ensure consistency. Average size discrepancy, defined as measured ICL size minus published ICL size, was reported along with standard deviation (SD) and confidence interval (CI). A two one-sided t-test (TOST) was used to compare statistical equivalence between spherical and toric ICLs within a 0.017 mm margin. Results TOST analysis revealed that the mean measured size of all lens sizes (12.1 mm, 12.6 mm, and 13.2 mm) and types (spherical and toric) is statistically equivalent (α = 0.05) to their labeled size, indicating a high level of manufacturing precision. No ICLs deviated from published measurements by more than 0.05 mm. Conclusion The actual sizes of ICLs closely match the published manufacturer sizes, suggesting high manufacturing precision. There is no significant variability between spherical and toric ICLs, supporting the reliability of published sizing for clinical decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.