Trial reportOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022
Short-term tear film stability, optical quality and visual performance in two dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control with different optical designs.
Trial report in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of wearing dual-focus soft contact lenses on myopia progression: a one-year randomized clinical trial in Chinese school-age children.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Short-term tear film stability, optical quality and visual performance in two dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control with different optical designs.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Trial
- Evaluating retinal image quality for myopia control lenses in a synthetic accommodative wavefront model.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- A Randomized Trial on the Benefits of Refitting Symptomatic Contact Lens Wearers with Daily Disposable Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Research Tendency and Frontiers of Multifocal Lenses in Myopic Control in the Past Two Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Statistical Model of Ocular Wavefronts With Accommodation.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Daytime Changes in Tear Film Parameters and Visual Acuity with New-Generation Daily Disposable Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses-A Double-Masked Study in Symptomatic Subjects.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Exploring the Cutting Edge of Vision Science: New Developments in Diagnostics and Treatment of Ocular Surface in Dry Eye Disease.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess and compare short-term visual and optical quality and tear film stability between two dual-focus (DF) prototype myopia control contact lenses (CLs) having different inner zone diameters.
methodsTwenty-eight myopic subjects were included in this randomised, double-masked crossover study. Refraction, best-corrected visual acuity (VA) and tear film stability were measured at baseline (i.e., when uncorrected). Subjects were then binocularly fitted with the DF CLs, with only the sensorial dominant eye being assessed. Lenses were of the same material and had inner zone diameters of either 2.1 mm (S design) or 4.0 mm (M design). Visual and physical short-term lens comfort, over-refraction, best-corrected VA, stereopsis at 40 cm, best-corrected photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), size and shape of light disturbance (LD), wavefront aberrations, subjective quality of vision (QoV Questionnaire) and tear film stability were measured for each lens.
resultsBoth CL designs decreased tear film stability compared with baseline (p < 0.05). VA and photopic CS were within normal values for the subjects' age with each CL. When comparing lenses, the M design promoted better photopic CS for the 18 cycles per degree spatial frequency (p < 0.001) and better LD (p < 0.02). However, higher-order aberrations were improved with the S design (p = 0.02). No significant difference between the two CLs was found for QoV scores and tear film stability.
conclusionsBoth DF CLs provided acceptable visual performance under photopic conditions. The 4.0 mm inner zone gave better contrast sensitivity at high frequencies and lower light disturbance, while the 2.1 mm central diameter induced fewer higher-order aberrations for a 5 mm pupil diameter. Both CLs produced the same subjective visual short-term lens comfort.
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.