Trial reportClinical optometry2022
Long Day Wear Experience with Water Surface Daily Disposable Contact Lenses.
Trial report in Clinical optometry, 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.
- Performance of a Toric, Monthly, Soft Contact Lens in Digital Device Users.Clinical optometry · 2025Trial
- Wear Experiences with Two Soft Contact Lenses for Astigmatism of Different Modalities.Clinical optometry · 2024Trial
- Evaluating the Performance of Verofilcon A Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in a Group of Heavy Digital Device Users.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of Wear Experience with Soft Daily Disposable Lenses for Astigmatism over 16 Hours of Wear.Clinical optometry · 2022Trial
- Short-Term Fit Assessment of a Novel Daily Disposable, Toric, Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Trial
- Compliance With Daily Disposable Contact Lens Replacement Among Contact Lens Wearers: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- The impact of various daily disposable contact lens materials on contrast sensitivity.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025Article
- EVALUATION OF WEAR EXPERIENCE WITH WATER SURFACE DAILY DISPOSABLE LENSES IN SATISFIED REUSABLE SOFT CONTACT LENS WEARERS.Journal of contact lens research & science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the wear experience of silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses with water surface technology over a long day of lens wear. Methods: Thirty-five soft contact lens wearers were refit with the daily disposable study lenses and participants scored their initial impressions of comfort, vision and satisfaction using a visual analog scale (VAS). Participants used their smart phones to complete surveys of comfort and vision on a scale of 1-10 at 10, 12, 14, and 16 hours of lens wear on 5 weeknights. A participant score for each time point was calculated by averaging the evening responses. End of study VAS surveys of symptoms were also completed. Results: Median (Interquartile Range) VAS initial impression scores were 99.00 (12.00) for quality of vision, 98.00 (16.00) for comfort, and 100.00 (13.00) for satisfaction. The end of study surveys found end of day median VAS scores of 87.00 (19.00) for end of day quality of vision and 75.00 (24.50) for end of day comfort. The median score for overall quality of vision was 93.00 (14.00) and for overall comfort was 93.00 (16.50). The median score for end of day dryness was 37.00 (55.00) and overall dryness was 13.00 (34.00). Conclusion: The daily disposable lenses with water surface treatment used in this study maintained high median scores for comfort and quality of vision for up to 16 hours of wear.
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.