ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
Sagittal height differences of disposable soft contact lenses.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim to improve contact lens fitting by using an innovative and simple photogrammetry imaging system to find the sagittal height (SAG) of soft contact lenses.
methodsEleven different types of commercially available soft contact lenses were measured, and five different lenses per package of each lens type were evaluated. The lenses were inserted in a polymethyl methacrylate cell with parallel faces containing a solution of saline and fluorescein to improve the contrast against the background. For every lens, two photographs from the top view and five photographs from the side view were taken. Using homothetic transformations, we calculated the sagittal height.
resultsThe SAG of all lenses ranged from 3450 to 3907 μm. Differences can be appreciated between SAG of different materials. Performing an ANOVA test, we confirm that the intra-packaging sagitta is reliable for every lens. Comparing the measured SAG with the calculated spherical one, we confirm that the majority of lenses, eight out of eleven, have a spherical geometry for the internal side. Finally, we are able to group the type of lenses that present similar SAG apart from the data reported on the blister.
conclusionOptical coherence tomography measurement of the eye sagitta over a given chord helped finding the first lens to fit, because matching contact lens sagitta and ocular sagitta is the key for a good fitting. In our work, we found that the majority of brands use single sphere geometry for internal surface of disposable soft contact lenses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31677086What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.