ArticleContact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association2022
Multifocal contact lens vision simulated with a clinical binocular simulator.
Article in Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Halo Measurements in Simulated Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Predictions of Through-Focus Performance of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopic Subjects Using a Visual Simulator.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Assessing Ocular Dominance: Rethinking the Current Paradigm.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2025Article
- Visual simulation of intraocular lenses: technologies and applications [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2025Review
- Perceptual cost and benefit of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: effect of energy balance, addition, and adaptation.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Simulation of daily soft multifocal contact lenses using SimVis Gekko: from in-vitro and computational characterization to clinical validation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Monovision Correction Preference and Eye Dominance Measurements.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Evaluating the effect of ocular aberrations on the simulated performance of a new refractive IOL design using adaptive optics.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Adaptive optics visual simulators: a review of recent optical designs and applications [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the binocular visual perception of participants wearing multifocal contact lenses and these same lens designs viewed through a temporal multiplexing visual simulator.
methodsVisual performance and perceived visual quality at various distances were obtained in 37 participants wearing soft M-CLs and through the SimVis Gekko programmed with the same lenses. In a pilot study (n = 10) visual performance was measured in terms of LogMAR visual acuity (VA) at far (4 m), intermediate (64 cm) and near (40 cm) distances and through-focus VA (TFVA) curves with the simulated M-CLs. In the follow-up study (n = 27), LogMAR VA at far, intermediate and near distances were measured both with the actual and simulated M-CLs. Perceived visual quality was measured in both studies using the Multifocal Acceptance Score (MAS-2EV), and a Participants Reported Outcomes Vision questionnaire. Differences between the metrics obtained with simulated and actual lenses were obtained.
resultsBoth actual and simulated M-CLs increased depth-of-focus by a similar amount. Mean LogMAR VA differences with actual and simulated M-CLs ranged between 4 and 6 letters (0.08 ± 0.01, 0.12 ± 0.01 and 0.10 ± 0.01, for far, intermediate and near distances, respectively). MAS-2EV average score differences with actual and simulated M-CLs ranged between -1.00 and + 4.25. Average MAS-2EV scores were not correlated significantly with VA. However, MAS-2EV (average and individual scores) were highly correlated to visual quality questionnaire responses (p < 0.005).
conclusionsA simultaneous vision simulator accurately represented vision with M-CLs both VA at various distances and perceived visual quality, as measured in a clinical setting. The MAS-2EV metric accurately captured participant reported outcomes of standard vision questionnaires. The combination of SimVis Gekko and MAS-2EV has the potential to largely reduce chair time in M-CLs fitting.
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.