***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: PURPOSE To compare the visual performance of patients with unilateral cataract following implantation of monofocal , accommodating , refractive , and diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses ( IOL ) .  DESIGN Prospect i ve nonr and omized clinical trial . METHODS Eighty-seven patients with unilateral cataract were enrolled in 4 groups for phacoemulsification and IOL implantation . Twenty-four patients had monofocal ( Alcon Acrysof ) ( group 1 ) , 21 patients had accommodating ( Human Optics 1CU ) ( group 2 ) , 22 patients had diffractive multifocal ( Tecnis ZM900 ) ( group 3 ) , and 20 patients had refractive multifocal ( AMO Rezoom ) ( group 4 ) IOL implantations . Ages of patients were between 40 and 70 . Parameters analyzed at the 18th postoperative month were subjective refractions , monocular and binocular distance , intermediate and near uncorrected visual acuities , monocular distance and near best-corrected visual acuities , monocular distance-corrected intermediate and near visual acuities , stereopsis , visual complaints , and spectacle dependency . RESULTS No significant difference was observed between distance and near best-corrected visual acuities of IOL groups , and between intermediate visual acuities of groups 2 , 3 , and 4 . Groups 3 and 4 had statistically better near vision than the other groups ( P < .05 ) . No significant difference was observed between near visual acuities of groups 3 and 4 . Number of patients with better stereoscopic function , spectacle independence , and complaints of halo in groups 3 and 4 was significantly higher than in other groups ( P < .05 ) . CONCLUSIONS Multifocal IOLs provide better stereopsis , higher spectacle independence rates , and satisfactory functional vision over a broad range of distances in presbyopic patients with unilateral cataract compared with the monofocal and accommodating IOLs Flaws in the design , conduct , analysis , and reporting of r and omised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated . The Cochrane Collaboration ’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more PURPOSE To measure the axial movement of an accommodating intraocular lens ( IOL ) induced by ciliary muscle contraction after application of pilocarpine . DESIGN R and omized , controlled , patient- and examiner-masked trial with intrapatient comparison . PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS One hundred ten eyes of 55 patients with age-related bilateral cataract . METHODS This study was divided into 3 parts . In the first , the accommodating IOL ( 1CU ) was compared with a 3-piece open-loop acrylic IOL that served as the control . In the second , to assess the effect of capsule fibrosis on the potential accommodating performance of the accommodating IOL , extensive polishing of the anterior capsule with a slit cannula was compared with st and ard surgery . In the third , the effect of a posterior capsulorhexis was compared with that of st and ard surgery .  Anterior chamber depth ( ACD ) was assessed with partial coherence interferometry , measured before and after topical application of pilocarpine 2 % , and near visual acuity ( VA ) was evaluated 3 months after surgery . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Pilocarpine-induced change in ACD . RESULTS The accommodating IOL showed a forward movement under pilocarpine with a median amplitude of movement of -314 microm ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] : -148 to -592 ) , compared with the backward movement of 63 microm ( 95 % CI : 161 to -41 ) for the open-loop control IOL ( P = 0.001 ) . Capsule polishing and a posterior capsulorhexis had no effect on IOL movement with the accommodating IOL . The median near VA with distance correction was 20/60 . CONCLUSION Pilocarpine induced a small but significant forward movement of the accommodating IOL . However , the amount of movement was calculated to result in a refractive change of < 0.5 diopters ( D ) in most patients , reaching 1 D or slightly more in only single cases , with a large variability of movement . Neither polishing of the capsule bag nor a posterior capsulorhexis could enhance the accommodative ability OBJECTIVE To compare the binocular near vision performance in patients implanted with the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens ( IOL ) with a multifocal and monofocal IOL .  DESIGN Prospect i ve , r and omized , double-masked clinical trial . PARTICIPANTS Ninety patients presenting for cataract surgery to the Department of Ophthalmology , Hillingdon Hospital were r and omized to receive the 1CU accommodative IOL , a multifocal IOL , or a monofocal IOL ( control group ) . METHODS Patients underwent bilateral sequential phacoemulsification with implantation of 1 of the 3 IOL types and were assessed at 3 and 18 months after second-eye surgery . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution distance and near visual acuities ( VAs ) ( unaided and distance corrected ) , contrast sensitivity , and accommodative amplitude ( near point and defocusing ) were measured at 3 and 18 months . Reading speed was assessed at 18 months , and glare symptoms and spectacle independence were compared using a st and ardized question naire . RESULTS Mean unaided and distance-corrected binocular near VAs were similar in the 1CU and multifocal and were significantly higher than the control group 's ( P<0.02 ) . There was no significant difference in reading speed between any of the groups , but critical print sizes were similar in the 1CU and multifocal groups and significantly better than the control group 's ( P = 0.02 ) . The accommodative range was highest in the multifocal group and lowest in the control group , and there was no significant difference between the 1CU and control groups for defocus or near point at 18 months . Of the 1CU group and control group , 71.4 % and 63.2 % , respectively , experienced no glare at 18 months , compared with only 25 % of the multifocal group ( P = 0.01 ) . Of the 1CU group and multifocal group , 19 % and 27.3 % , respectively , were completely spectacle independent at 18 months ; none of the control group was ( P = 0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The 1CU accommodating IOL provides improved near vision compared with a monofocal IOL . There is a discrepancy between the near function and accommodative amplitude measured in the 1CU . The multifocal provides excellent near acuity , but photopic phenomena remain a problem inherent in the lens design Aim : To assess the accommodative power of a new foldable monofocal intraocular lens . Method : A prospect i ve r and omised non-masked clinical interventional study . The study included 40 patients attending the hospital for cataract surgery and who were r and omly distributed into a study group receiving a  new foldable monofocal intraocular lens with flexible haptics , and a  control group receiving a st and ard foldable intraocular lens . Mean follow up period was 8.51 ( SD 1.34 ) months ( range 4–11 months ) St and ard cataract surgery consisted of clear cornea incision , capsulorrhexis , phacoemulsification , and intraocular lens implantation , with topical anaesthesia . The main outcome measures were preoperative and postoperative visual acuity for near and distance ; range of accommodation ; change in anterior chamber depth . Results : In the study group compared with the control group , range of accommodation was significantly ( p = 0.01 ) higher ( 1.01 ( SD 0.4 ) dioptres versus 0.50 ( 0.11 ) dioptres ) and change in anterior chamber depth was significantly more pronounced ( 0.82 ( 0.30 ) versus 0.40 ( 0.32 ) , p = 0.01 ) . Both groups did not vary significantly in best corrected vision ( 0.94 ( 0.12 ) versus 0.93 ( 0.18 ) ; p = 0.74 ) . Conclusion : During a mean follow up period of 8 months after implantation , the new foldable monofocal intraocular lens with flexible haptics showed an accommodative power of about 1 dioptre , which was significantly higher than the accommodative power of a conventional monofocal flexible intraocular lens . The difference in the accommodative power between the two intraocular lenses was paralleled by a difference in the change of the anterior chamber depth PURPOSE To evaluate the age-related change in contrast sensitivity seen in a middle-aged to elderly Japanese population . METHODS Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity were measured in subjects aged 40 to 79 years r and omly recruited from a community in Aichi prefecture near Nagoya , Japan .  Contrast sensitivity tests  were performed using the Vistech contrast sensitivity test chart ( VCTS 6500 ) . The results were statistically analyzed relative to age . RESULTS A statistically significant decrease in contrast sensitivity was seen with advancing age at each spatial frequency ( Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel : P<.001 ) . This trend was detected even when the subjects were limited to only those having a corrected visual acuity of 1.0 or better ( Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel : P<.001 ) . Overall , 9.4 % of the eyes with good visual acuity had poor contrast sensitivity at a high spatial frequency , while in the 70 - 79-year-old group , the percentage with poor contrast sensitivity reached 21.1 % . CONCLUSIONS The age-related decrease in contrast sensitivity was confirmed at all frequencies in our population , even when adjusted for visual acuity . Our results suggest that contrast sensitivity tests , especially at high frequencies , assess aspects of visual function that can not be determined in the elderly population from visual acuity tests alone PURPOSE To evaluate selected functional and physical properties of 2 models of accommodative intraocular lenses ( IOLs ) compared with those of a st and ard monofocal IOL . DESIGN Prospect i ve r and omized comparative trial . PARTICIPANTS Subjects were divided into 3 groups . In group 1 , 30 eyes ( 19 subjects ) received 1CU IOL implantation ;  in group 2 , 29 eyes ( 19 subjects ) received  AT-45 IOL implantation ; and in group 3 , 21 eyes ( 21 subjects ) were implanted with a monofocal IOL as a control . INTERVENTION Cataract surgery with implantation of the 1CU and AT-45 accommodative IOL models in the study groups , and the ACR6D monofocal IOL in the control group . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Far and near distance visual parameters were assessed at 1 , 6 , and 12 months after surgery in the accommodative IOL groups , and at 1 and 12 months in the control group . Anterior segment anatomy was investigated by ultrasound biomicroscopy , with and without visual accommodative stimulation . RESULTS The accommodative IOL groups significantly differed from the controls in terms of lower near-distance refractive addition ( NDRA ) and better distance-corrected near visual acuity ( DCNVA ) , with P<0.001 at 1 year . The anterior IOL displacement during accommodation ( DeltaACD ) was significantly larger in the study groups , and this correlated with DCNVA . Until 6 months , the DeltaACD correlated with the solicited sclerociliary process rotation only in the study groups . CONCLUSION This 12-month study demonstrated that the accommodating IOLs achieved better clinical results than the monofocal IOL in terms of DCNVA and NDRA . These results support the hypothesis that accommodative IOLs proportionally react to ciliary body rotation , although this relationship became less evident at 12 months Purpose To compare visual acuity , intraocular lens ( IOL ) movement , and depth of focus with the Crystalens HD single‐optic accommodating IOL and the Tecnis ZCB00 aspheric monofocal IOL . Setting St. Thomas ’ Hospital , London , United Kingdom . Design Prospect i ve r and omized controlled trial . Methods Patients with bilateral symptomatic cataract had bilateral sequential cataract surgery within 6 weeks with r and omized implantation of the accommodating or monofocal IOL in both eyes . Exclusion criteria included other ocular conditions and corneal astigmatism greater than 2.00 diopters . The primary outcome was uniocular distance‐corrected near visual acuity ( DCNVA ) . Secondary measures were IOL movement , depth of focus , intermediate and distance vision , objective refraction , and pupil size at distance and near fixation . Results from 3 months postoperatively are presented . Results Three months postoperatively , 64 patients ( 32 in each group ) were available for study . The distance vision was not statistically significantly different between the accommodating IOL and monofocal IOL ( mean 0.05 logMAR versus 0.06 logMAR ) . The mean DCNVA ( 0.48 logMAR ± 0.15 [ SD ] versus 0.61 ± 0.13 logMAR ) and intermediate visual acuity ( 0.08 ± 0.1 logMAR versus 0.20 ± 0.09 logMAR ) were significantly better with the accommodating IOL ( P<.001 ) . Neither IOL had clinical ly significant movement , and near vision did not directly correlate with movement of the accommodating IOL . The accommodating IOL provided greater depth of focus . Conclusions Near and intermediate acuities were better with the accommodating IOL . This effect was not directly linked to IOL movement but was at least 
    Output:
    
Conclusion : Our study confirmed that AC-IOLs can provide cataract patients  with DCNVA and result in more high levels of spectacle independence than MF-IOLs .