ArticleClinical optometry2020
Effects of Aqueous-Supplementing Artificial Tears in Wearers of Biweekly Replacement Contact Lenses vs Wearers of Daily Disposable Contact Lenses.
Article in Clinical optometry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lubricating drops for contact lens discomfort in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing automated and manual assessments of tear break-up time using different non-invasive devices and a fluorescein procedure.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effects of artificial tears (ATs) in wearers of biweekly replacement silicone hydrogel contact lenses (BW-Ws) and wearers of daily disposable contact lenses (DD-Ws) of the same material. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe aqueous-supplementing ATs, OPTOyalA and OPTOidro, were assigned to be used for 2 weeks to healthy and young subjects: 1) 20 (8 and 12, respectively) BW-Ws wearing silicone hydrogel somofilcon A CLs (Clariti Elite), 2) 18 (9 and 9, respectively) DD-Ws wearing silicone hydrogel somofilcon A CLs (Clarity 1 Day), and 3) a control group of 33 (16 and 17, respectively) N-Ws. Ocular symptoms and comfort, tear volume and stability, and ocular surface condition were assessed by Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), 5-Item Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ5), tear meniscus height (TMH), non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), and evaluation of ocular redness (OR). The assessment was performed before and after 15 days of use of the ATs in the 3 groups (BW-Ws, DD-Ws, and N-Ws).
resultsNo clear significant difference was noted in symptoms and signs between OPTOyalA and OPTOidro irrespectively of the group of people studied. ATs use for 15 days produced a significant improvement in DEQ5 and OR in DD-Ws (Δ=-34%, p=0.006; Δ=-23%, p<0.001) and in N-Ws (Δ=-21%, p=0.001; Δ=-10%, p=0.006) but not in BW-Ws (Δ=-5%, p=0.072; Δ=-2%, p=0.257). No significant change was noted for TMH.
conclusionIn young and healthy subjects, the aqueous-supplementing effect of the ATs under consideration is more a rinsing and tear replacem ent effect than an increase in tear volume, and it produces an improvement of the eye redness and ocular symptoms. Contact lens wear influenced the effectiveness of ATs in a way which is correlated with the CL replacement schedule.
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.