Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418790›Full record

ReviewClinical optometry2022

How Can We Best Measure the Performance of Scleral Lenses? Current Insights.

Rute J Macedo-de-Araújo, Daddi Fadel, Melissa Barnett

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical optometry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Scleral lenses and PROSE: indications, complications, and future challenges.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Commentary - Scleral lenses: The leading edge.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rute J Macedo-de-AraújoClinical & Experimental Optometry Research Laboratory (CEORLab), Physics Centre of Minho and Porto Universities (CF-UM-UP), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3664-4273
Daddi FadelPrivate Practice, Rieti, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6194-0758
Melissa BarnettDavis Eye Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7864-2490
University of Minho · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scleral lenses (SLs) present several unique advantageous characteristics for patients. As these lenses are mainly fitted in severely diseased eyes, a thorough evaluation of the ocular surface before and after SL fitting and the on-eye SL fitting evaluation are essential and help minimize potential physiological complications. This review will explore the current and emerging techniques and instrumentation to best measure SL performance ensuring optimal lens fitting, visual quality, comfort and physiological responses, highlighting some potential complications and follow-up recommendations. A single physician could perform the great majority of evaluations. Still, the authors consider that the assessment of SL fitting should be a collaborative and multidisciplinary job, involving contact lens practitioners, ophthalmologists and the industry. This publication has reviewed the most up-to-date work and listed the most used techniques; however, the authors encourage the development of more evidence-based recommendations for SL clinical practice.

Indexed as

instrumentationperformancescleral lens

Identifiers

PMID35418790
PMCPMC9000539
OpenAlexW4225554089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.