ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Clinical Performance of Samfilcon A, a Unique Silicone Hydrogel Lens, on a 7-Day Extended Wear Basis.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short- and long-term impact of silicone hydrogel contact lens wear on the ocular surface and anterior segment: a confocal microscopy study.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Samfilcon A and Balafilcon A Bandage Contact Lenses in Reducing Postoperative Symptoms After Pterygium Surgery.Clinical optometry · 2024Article
- Advances in Therapeutic Contact Lenses for the Management of Different Ocular Conditions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of samfilcon A, a unique, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)-containing, silicone hydrogel contact lens with that of the balafilcon A silicone hydrogel contact lens when worn on a 7-day extended wear basis. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA total of 669 subjects completed this 12-month, controlled, parallel group, masked, randomized study; of these, 340 wore samfilcon A lenses and 329 balafilcon A lenses. Subjects wore their respective assigned lenses bilaterally on a 7-day extended wear basis. On the seventh night of each wearing week, lenses were removed, cleaned, and disinfected using Biotrue multi-purpose solution (MPS), then re-inserted the following morning. Lenses were replaced with new lenses monthly. At each follow-up visit, investigators completed a slit lamp evaluation, and subjects rated lenses based upon a predefined set of performance criteria.
resultsThe samfilcon A lens performed comparably to the balafilcon A lens in terms of most graded and ungraded slit lamp findings, differing significantly only for corneal staining Grade 2 or greater, which favored samfilcon A, and anterior segment abnormalities, which favored balafilcon A. Subjects rated both lenses highly when queried about various lens-wearing characteristics. When comparing the number of subjects with findings on either eye on at least one follow-up visit, the two lenses were comparable in many aspects but favored samfilcon A with respect to cleanliness upon removal, overall comfort, comfort at end of day, dryness, vision, vision in low light, vision at end of day, and overall impression (all p < 0.05).
conclusionWhile subjects rated both highly, samfilcon A lenses worn for 7-day extended wear and replaced on a monthly basis performed comparably to or better than balafilcon A lenses when worn for the same 7-day wear time and replacement cycle.
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.