Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35449200›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2022

The influence of contact lenses with different optical designs on the binocular vision and visual behavior of young adults.

Shyan-Tarng Chen, Hsiao-Ching Tung, Yan-Ting Chen, Chuen-Lin Tien, Chih-Wei Yeh, Jheng-Sin Lian, Ching-Ying Cheng

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Association Between Binocular Vision Disorders and Contact Lens Discomfort During Soft Contact Lens Wear: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shyan-Tarng Chen *Department of Optometry, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Hsiao-Ching Tung *Dr. Don's Eye Clinic, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yan-Ting ChenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chuen-Lin TienDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chih-Wei YehDepartment of Optometry, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jheng-Sin LianShu-Zen Junior College of Medicine and Management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ching-Ying ChengDepartment of Optometry, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. ldiioul.tw@gmail.com.
Chung Shan Medical University · TWChung Shan Medical University Hospital · TWFeng Chia University · TWMin-Hwei College of Health Care Management · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theoretically, contact lenses change the accommodation and vergence demands of the eyes and directly or indirectly influence binocular vision. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different optical designs of contact lenses on binocular vision and visual behavior among young adults. In this randomized, single-blinded experimental study, visual behavioral performance (VBP) and Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaires were used for preliminary screening. Nineteen myopic subjects aged 20-26 years (21.59 ± 1.40 years) participated in the study. Baseline values for subjective refraction and binocular visual functions were evaluated. All the subjects were randomly grouped to wear different optical designs of single-vision, progressive, and bifocal contact lenses. Eye examinations were performed on the first day (CL baseline), 2nd week, and 4th week of wearing the lenses. In addition, subjects completed the VBP and visual quality questionnaire again at the end of the examination. Single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) increased accommodative lag, negative relative accommodation, and distant and near vergence; however, vergence facilities, accommodative facilities, heterophoria, and the comfort and posture balance dimensions in the VBP questionnaire were improved. Progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) reduced the lag of accommodation and near vergence; in addition, vergence facilities and accommodative facilities were also improved. Bifocal contact lenses (Lens 3) affected negative and positive relative accommodation, but vergence facilities and accommodative facilities also progressed. Furthermore, both progressive (Lens 2) and bifocal (Lens 3) contact lenses enhanced overall visual behavioral performance. In terms of visual quality, single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) were the most comfortable, progressive and bifocal contact lenses reduced distant visual acuity and stability, progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) had more complaints about halos at night, and bifocal contact lens (Lens 3) users were more likely to have double vision. Compared with single-vision contact lenses, progressive and bifocal contact lenses relaxed accommodation, reduced the lag of accommodation, and improved visual behavioral performance. Although the vergence function showed a significant change, it did not show worse trends when wearing contact lenses. Contact lenses with different optical designs have a great influence on binocular vision and visual behavioral performance.

Indexed as

Contact LensesVision, BinocularAccommodation, OcularHumansVision TestsVisual AcuityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35449200
PMCPMC9023515
OpenAlexW4224260228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.