Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32334980›Full record

Trial reportJournal of optometry

An investigation of low power convex lenses (adds) for eyestrain in the digital age (CLEDA).

Robert Yammouni, Bruce Jw Evans

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Attitudes of optometrists in the UK and Ireland to Digital Eye Strain and approaches to assessment and management.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert YammouniNeville Chappell Research Clinic, Institute of Optometry, 56-62 Newington Causeway, London, SE1 6DS, UK.
Bruce Jw EvansNeville Chappell Research Clinic, Institute of Optometry, 56-62 Newington Causeway, London, SE1 6DS, UK; Division of Optometry & Visual Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. Electronic address: research@ioo.org.uk.
City, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDigital eye strain (DES; computer vision syndrome) is a common cause of symptoms when viewing digital devices. Low-powered convex lenses (adds) have been recommended for the condition and "accommodative support" designs developed on this premise. The present research reports the extent to which dry eye is present in this population and the effect of convex lenses on symptoms and visual performance.

methodsThe CVS-Q instrument was used to select pre-presbyopic adults with the symptoms of DES. Participants received a full eye examination including an assessment of dry eye with a modified SANDE questionnaire and using DEWS I criteria. The immediate effect of low-powered convex lenses (low adds: +0.50D, +0.75D, +1.25D) was investigated using subjective preference and a double-masked comparison with plano lenses with the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test (WRRT). Throughout this testing, participants wore their full distance refractive correction, based on non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and subjective refraction.

resultsThe signs and symptoms of dry eye were frequently present. Most participants reported a subjective preference for low adds, with +0.75D the most commonly preferred lens. Low adds (+0.50D and +0.75D; but not +1.25D) were associated with significantly improved performance at the WRRT. One quarter of participants read more than 10% faster with these additional convex lenses.

conclusionsThe study population was aged 20-40y and mostly worked on desktop computers. It is possible that +1.25D add may be more advantageous for people who are older or work more at closer viewing distances. Many symptomatic users of digital devices report a preference for low adds and use of these lenses is often associated with an improvement in reading performance.

Indexed as

ComputersEyeglassesAccommodation, OcularAdultAsthenopiaCross-Sectional StudiesDouble-Blind MethodDry Eye SyndromesFemaleHumansMaleOptics and PhotonicsPhysical ExaminationReadingSurveys and QuestionnairesVision TestsAdición de cercaComputer vision syndromeDigital eyestrainDry eyeFatiga digitalLecturaLentes de gafasNear additionOjo secoReadingSíndrome visual informáticoSpectacle lensWRRT

Identifiers

PMID32334980
PMCPMC7533629
OpenAlexW3019461871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.