Trial reportClinical optometry2024
Wear Experiences with Two Soft Contact Lenses for Astigmatism of Different Modalities.
Trial report in Clinical optometry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Satisfaction with a Novel Daily Toric Contact Lens in Individuals with Previous Lens Failures.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Patients expect to have excellent vision and comfort when wearing soft contact lenses. The purpose of this study was to compare the wear experiences of participants with astigmatism when wearing a daily disposable soft toric lens to an established, commonly used reusable toric lens. Methods: In this crossover study, habitual soft toric lens wearers were fit with a daily replacement soft toric lens (delefilcon A) and a reusable, 1-month replacement soft toric lens (comfilcon A) in a randomized order. After 30 days of wear, Visual analog scale (VAS) surveys were used to assess wear experience, including vision and comfort, for overall wear and end-of-day wear. Scores were compared statistically with mixed-effects linear models. Participants also responded to questions about convenience, ease of use, and satisfaction with both lenses and preference questions based upon comfort, vision, and overall performance. Results: Fifty-nine participants completed the multi-site crossover study. VAS scores [mean(std dev)] for overall quality of vision for the delefilcon A [80.4(16.4)] and comfilcon A [66.8(27.7)] lenses were statistically significant (P=0.002). The difference in the mean overall comfort scores for the delefilcon A lenses [71.6(26.3)] and comfilcon A lenses [63.2(28.9)] was 8.4, which exceeds the establish criteria for clinical significance, although not statistically significant (P=0.08). Overall satisfaction scores were 68.8(26.9) for the delefilcon A and 59.7(30.3) for the comfilcon A lenses (P=0.08). Both lenses provided mean binocular visual acuities better than 20/20 Snellen equivalent. Over half of the participants preferred the delefilcon A lenses based upon comfort, vision, and overall performance. Convenience, ease of use, and satisfaction all scored higher with delefilcon A lenses. Conclusion: The results of this study show that wear experience with delefilcon A lenses for astigmatism can meet or exceed that of comfilcon A toric lenses while also providing healthy, daily disposable lens 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.