Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35801815›Full record

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.

José Vicente García-Marqués, Rute Juliana Macedo-De-Araújo, Colm McAlinden, Miguel Faria-Ribeiro, Alejandro Cerviño, José Manuel González-Méijome

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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) · 2022
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Statistical Model of Ocular Wavefronts With Accommodation.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

José Vicente García-MarquésOptometry Research Group, Department of Optics and Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8938-5194
Rute Juliana Macedo-De-AraújoClinical and Experimental Optometry Research Laboratory (CEORLab) Center of Physics (Optometry), School of Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3664-4273
Colm McAlindenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4517-4616
Miguel Faria-RibeiroClinical and Experimental Optometry Research Laboratory (CEORLab) Center of Physics (Optometry), School of Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4880-9680
Alejandro CerviñoOptometry Research Group, Department of Optics and Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8014-3279
José Manuel González-MéijomeClinical and Experimental Optometry Research Laboratory (CEORLab) Center of Physics (Optometry), School of Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9050-4170

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Contact LensesContact Lenses, HydrophilicMyopiaContrast SensitivityCross-Over StudiesHumansRefraction, OcularVisual Acuitylight disturbancemultifocal contact lensmyopia controltear film stabilityvisual performancevisual quality

Identifiers

PMID35801815
PMCPMC9540637

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.