Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24887209›Full record

Trial reportEye & contact lens2014

Contact lens care solutions: a pilot study of ethnic differences in clinical signs and symptoms.

Meng C Lin, Jenny Yuen, Andrew D Graham

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Eye & contact lens, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Meng C LinClinical Research Center, School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Jenny Yuen
Andrew D Graham

Funding

Berkeley Clinical Scientist Development ProgramK12EY017269 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI POLSE, KENNETH A · 2005 to 2014
$8.6M
NEI NIH HHS K12 EY017269
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether Asian and white subjects differ in clinical signs or subjective symptoms in response to the use of different biguanide-preserved contact lens care solutions.

methodsForty-two subjects (15 Asian and 27 white) wearing lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel contact lenses used a preservative-free lens care solution bilaterally for 2 weeks, then used two biguanide-preserved solutions (solution 1: ReNu MPS; solution 2: AQuify MPS) contralaterally in randomly assigned eyes for 4 weeks. Comprehensive ocular surface examinations were performed and symptomatology questionnaires were administered every 2 weeks. Investigators were masked as to solution assignment during examinations, whereas subjects were not to avoid potential difficulties in compliance with the protocol.

resultsWith solution 1, most Asian and white subjects had grade 2 or greater corneal staining after 2 weeks (67% and 59%, respectively) and 4 weeks (60% and 67%, respectively). With solution 2, grade 2 or greater corneal staining occurred in 40% of Asians after 2 weeks and in 13% after 4 weeks, but in only 4% of whites after 2 weeks and 0% after 4 weeks. Whites reported significantly better average comfort (P=0.046) and less dryness (P<0.001) than did Asians.

conclusionsAsians and whites differ in both ocular response to the use of contact lens care solutions and in reporting subjective symptoms. Racial and ethnic differences should be considered when evaluating and treating contact lens patients in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

Asian PeopleContact Lenses, Extended-WearWhite PeopleAdolescentAdultBiguanidesContact Lens SolutionsCorneal DiseasesCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansHydrogelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionBiguanidesContact Lens SolutionsHydrogelslotrafilcon BPreservatives, PharmaceuticalSilicones

Identifiers

PMID24887209
PMCPMC4232463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.