Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37901285›Full record

Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023

Evaluating the Performance of Verofilcon A Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in a Group of Heavy Digital Device Users.

Marc-Matthias Schulze, Daddi Fadel, Doerte Luensmann, Alison Ng, Sarah Guthrie, Jill Woods, Lyndon Jones

Open access · goldAbstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marc-Matthias SchulzeCentre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4025-553X
Daddi FadelCentre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6194-0758
Doerte LuensmannCentre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8305-7747
Alison NgCentre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6277-8470
Sarah GuthrieCentre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7282-3848
Jill WoodsCentre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5031-791X
Lyndon JonesCentre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7409-7349
University of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of verofilcon A daily disposable contact lenses (CL) in CL wearers who identified themselves as heavy digital device users. Patients and Methods: This prospective, non-masked, open-label study enrolled CL wearers who reported ≥6 hours digital device use per day. Participants were dispensed with the verofilcon A study lenses for 14±2 days, to be worn for at least 5 days a week and 10 hours per day, while continuing their normal routine of digital device use. Participants rated the lens performance at the Day 14 visit using a 0-100 (with 100 being best) scale. Ratings were completed at lens insertion, after 6 hours of digital device use, just before CL removal and for overall experience. Participants also completed a 4-point (strongly agree/disagree, slightly agree/disagree) Likert scale-based questionnaire. Results: Thirty-two participants were eligible and completed the study (27 females; age 25.8 ± 6.0 years, ranging from 19 to 40). Overall lens performance ratings at the Day 14 visit (mean ± standard deviation) for comfort, dryness, and clarity of vision were 91 ± 11, 88 ± 11, and 92 ± 9, respectively. Subjective ratings were stable throughout the day with no significant differences after insertion, after 6 hours of digital device use and before CL removal (all p>0.05). The majority of participants agreed that the study lenses performed well, provided good all-day comfort (28/32; p<0.01) and good all-day vision (29/32; p<0.01). Participants also agreed that after ≥6 hours of digital device use they were satisfied with CL comfort (27/32; p<0.01), vision (29/32; p<0.01) and that the lenses provided good performance (26/32; p<0.01). Conclusion: Verofilcon A lenses were found to perform well, with high ratings for comfort, dryness and vision that remained high throughout the day, during extensive digital device use.

Indexed as

comfortcontact lensesdigital devicelens wettabilityverofilcon Avision

Identifiers

PMID37901285
PMCPMC10612504
OpenAlexW4387895661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.