OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes of different MIOLs using a meta-analysis based on the available information reported in the international literature. METHODS: All comparative clinical trials including at least one MIOL were extracted from the literature. Patients had to have surgery for either cataract or presbyopia. Clinical outcomes included uncorrected near and distance visual acuity (UNVA, UDVA in LogMAR), spectacle independence and halos. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare outcomes for different types of implants. RESULTS:  Twenty papers were identified with 11 monofocal IOLs and 35 MIOLs (19 diffractives including 12 ReSTORs, 14 refractives and 2 accommodatives). In comparison to monofocal IOLs, MIOLs had  better UDVA (0.165 vs. 0.093, p<0.001) and better UNVA (0.47 vs. 0.14, p<0.0001) resulting in a higher spectacle independence incidence rate (IRR=3.62, P<0.0001). In comparison to refractive MIOLs, diffractive MIOLs had similar UDVA (0.105 vs. 0.085, p=0.78), and better UNVA (0.22 vs. 0.082, p<0.0001) resulting in a higher spectacle independence incidence rate (IRR=1.75, P<0.001). In comparison to other MIOLs, ReSTOR had better UDVA (0.067 vs. 0.109, p<0.0001), and better UNVA (0.064 vs. 0.184, p<0.006) resulting in a higher spectacle independence incidence rate (IRR=2.04, P<0.004). We found no statistically significant differences in halo incidence rates for different types of implants. CONCLUSIONS: MIOLs provide better UNVA and UDVA than monofocal IOLs, which lessens the need for spectacles. The design of the MIOL might play a role in post-surgical outcomes of different models.  ReSTOR, a diffractive MIOL, showed better UNVA, UDVA and higher rates of spectacle independence than the other MIOLs.