ArticleJournal of optometry
Contrast sensitivity function with soft contact lens wear.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Relationship of Photopic and Mesopic Contrast Sensitivity to Retinal-Choroidal Structural Characteristics in Low-to-Moderate and High Myopia.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- The impact of various daily disposable contact lens materials on contrast sensitivity.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025Article
- Effect of Contact Lens Design on Objective Visual Acuity-Based Parameters in Pre-Presbyopic Patients in Photopic and Mesopic Lighting Conditions.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of the Pre-Lens Tear Film Stability and Visual Performance of a Novel and Two Other Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in Healthcare Professionals Wearing Facial Masks for Prolonged Time.Clinical optometry · 2022Article
- Letter to the editor concerning "Contrast sensitivity function with soft contact lens wear".Journal of optometryArticle
- Opportunities and threats to contact lens practice in Spain.Journal of optometryArticle
- Reply to letter to the editor by London and Erdinest on "Contrast sensitivity function with soft contact lens wear".Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesTo compare contrast sensitivity function (CSF) with soft contact lens (SCL) and spectacles wear. To investigate the effect of a three-month period of SCL wear on CSF.
methodsForty-seven myopic subjects with no history of contact lens (CL) wear were included in this longitudinal prospective study. CSF was measured with spectacles using the CSV-1000 (VectorVision, Greenvile, OH). Subsequently, subjects were fitted with a daily disposable lens (Nelfilcon-A, Stenofilcon-A or Nesofilcon-A) in one eye and a monthly disposable lens (Lotrafilcon-B, Comfilcon-A or Balafilcon-A) in the other eye and wore the same type of CLs for three months. CSF was measured again on the same day and after three months wearing CLs. Differences in CSF with spectacles and CLs on baseline and changes to CSF after three months of CLs wear were assessed. The effect of lens materials and wearing modality on CSF change was also investigated.
resultsCSF was higher with CLs in comparison to the values with spectacles for spatial frequencies of 3, 6 and 12 cycles per degree (cpd) (p<0.05) while there was no difference for spatial frequency of 18 cpd (p=0.114). No significant difference was found in the CSF with CLs between baseline and after three months of lens wear (p>0.05). There was no difference in CSF between hydrogel and silicone CLs as well as when comparing daily with monthly wear CLs (p>0.05).
conclusionCSF is better with CLs than with spectacles. CSF values with CL are similar between baseline and after 3 months of lens wear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.