title: [Meta-analysis of clinical randomized controlled trials comparing refractive with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To systematic review the effectiveness of refractive multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) versus diffractive MIOL in the treatment of cataract.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized controlled trials comparing refractive MIOL with diffractive MIOL were identified by searching PubMed (1966 to May, 2013), EMbase (1980 to May, 2013), Medline (1966 to May, 2013), and The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2013). We also hand-searched related journals. All the searches were restricted in English or Chinese. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was evaluated by simple evaluate method that recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted by two reviewers with designed extraction form. RevMan software (release 5.2) was used for data management and analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 11 trials (1460 eyes) were included for systematic review. Subgroup analyses were used according to different model comparison of MIOL. The results showed a significant difference in the mean of the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) and the uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA) in the refractive MIOL group with WMD -0.04, 95%CI -0.06 to -0.03 (P < 0.01) and WMD -0.05, 95%CI -0.09 to -0.02 (P = 0.001). It showed a significantly difference in the mean of the uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), complete spectacle independent rate, halo rate and glare rate in the diffractive MIOL group with WMD 0.11, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.15 (P < 0.01), WMD 2.98, 95%CI 2.17 to 4.09 (P < 0.01), WMD 1.52, 95%CI 1.14 to 2.04 (P = 0.004) and WMD 1.27, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.50 (P = 0.005). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mean of the best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), the best distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (BDCIVA), the best distance corrected near visual acuity (BDCNVA) and the best corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA) with WMD -0.01, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.01 (P = 0.45), WMD -0.06, 95%CI -0.15 to 0.03 (P = 0.18), WMD 0.08, 95%CI -0.01 to 0.17 (P = 0.09) and WMD -0.02, 95%CI -0.26 to 0.23 (P = 0.88).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Patients implanted with refractive MIOL show better uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuity; patients implanted with diffractive MIOL show better uncorrected near visual acuity with less likely to appear light halo, glare and other visual adverse reactions. As for spectacles correction cases, patients implanted with diffractive or refractive MIOL have considerable performances in the far, middle, near visual acuity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital,Beijing 100853, China.
authors.forename: Dewang
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Shao
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital,Beijing 100853, China. Email:heshouzhi@sina.com.
authors.forename: Shouzhi
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: He
mesh_terms: D002386:Cataract; D006801:Humans; D019654:Lens Implantation, Intraocular / Q000295:instrumentation*; D007910:Lenses, Intraocular; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome