ArticleScientific reports2023
Visual satisfaction with progressive addition lenses prescribed with novel foveal fixation axis measurements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Progressive addition lens (PAL) prescription is usually conducted using the pupillary centre as a reference, which in general does not coincide with the visual axis (kappa distance), and this difference could induce undesired prismatic effects in far and near vision distances and adaptation problems. This study aimed to assess the impact on subjects' visual satisfaction with PALs prescribed based on foveal fixation axis (FFA) measurements. Two different PALs (LifeStyle 3i, Hoya Lens Iberia) were randomly prescribed [one with a customized inset (the difference between the FFA measurements (Ergofocus®, Lentitech, Spain) at far and near distances and the second with a standard inset (2.5 mm)] to be used by 71 healthy presbyopic volunteers in a prospective double-masked crossover clinical study involving one month of use of each PAL. Patients were self-classified into four groups according to their previous experience with PALs: neophyte, PAL users, PAL drop-out, and uncomfortable PAL users. Visual function and overall satisfaction with each PAL were collected and compared. Ninety-seven percent (95% CI 93-100%) of participants successfully adapted to PALs prescribed with FFA without significant differences (P = 0.26) among the study groups (100% neophyte and uncomfortable PAL users (95% CI 100% in both groups), 89% (95% CI 67-100%) PAL users and 94% (95% CI 82-100%) PAL drop-out group). There were no statistically significant differences in visual function (P > 0.05) between customized and standard inset PALs. Customized and standard inset lenses showed similar satisfaction (P > 0.42) that increased significantly (P < 0.01 without any carry-over effect) after 30 days of wear. PALs prescribed with FFA measurements showed high visual satisfaction, suggesting that these measurements are suitable for prescribing PAL adaptation processes. Additional research is necessary to assess differences in PAL users' performance with different prescription methods and lens designs.
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.