ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Antiviral Activity of Contemporary Contact Lens Care Solutions against Two Human Seasonal Coronavirus Strains.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antiviral activity of contact lens care solutions and rub-and-rinse regimen against adenovirus.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2025Article
- Antiviral and Antibacterial Cold Spray Coating Application on Rubber Substrate, Disruption in Disease Transmission Chain.Journal of thermal spray technology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given that reports have suggested SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted via conjunctiva, the ability of contact lens (CL) care products to reduce the infectiousness of two seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) (HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43) surrogates for SARS-CoV-2 was investigated. Methods: Biotrue and Boston Simplus (Bausch&Lomb), OPTI-FREE Puremoist and Clear Care (Alcon), and cleadew and cleadew GP (Ophtecs) were tested. Their ability to inactivate HCoV was evaluated using contact times of 4 and 6 h as well as 1% and 10% of virus inoculum. Results: Non-oxidative systems (Biotrue, Boston Simplus, and OPTI-FREE) did not exhibit a significant log10 reduction compared to controls for the two viral strains for either incubation time (all p > 0.05) when 10% tests were performed. For the 1% test, while Boston Simplus and OPTI-FREE exhibited a significant log10 reduction of both HCoV-229E (after 6 h) and HCoV-OC43 (after either 4 or 6 h incubation), those products showed less than 1 log10 reduction of the two infectious viruses. Oxidative systems based on hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine showed a significant log10 reduction compared with the controls for both HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43 in all tested conditions (all p < 0.01). Clear Care led to virus inactivation to below the limit of quantification for tests performed with 1% of inoculum after 6 h incubation, while cleadew and cleadew GP led to inactivation of the two viruses to below the limit of quantification in all tested conditions. Conclusion: Oxidative CL disinfection systems showed significant virucidal activity against HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43, while non-oxidative systems showed minimal ability to inactivate the HCoV species examined.
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.