ArticlePloS one2024
Complications and compliance in professionally-managed and self-managed contact lenses compared with non-contact lens wearers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Clinical analysis of dry eye after refractive surgery in army recruits in 2024.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigation of the influencing factors on subjective evaluation in initial and end-of-day silicone hydrogel contact lens wear.BMC ophthalmology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test the impact of professional management of soft contact lens wear on symptoms and ocular complications.
methodsSubjective symptoms and ocular complications of soft CL users who did not seek professional follow-up care (self-managed, SM), were compared to users who were prescribed CLs and their care professionally managed in optometry practices (PM), and to a control group of non-CL wearers. Habitual visual acuity, subjective dry-eye symptoms, and corneal abnormalities were assessed in all participants. CL wearers filled-out a usage habits questionnaire, and their CL fit was assessed. Outcomes were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi Squared tests.
resultsThe SM, PM, and non-CL wearers cohorts included 127 (mean age:24.3±5.1, median:23, range:16-45 years,104 female), 132 (mean age:25.5±6.2, median:23, range:18-43 years,103 female), and 56 (mean age:22.3±3.5, median:21, range:18-39 years,36 female) participants, respectively. Meibomian gland dysfunction grade (p = 0.004, p<0.0001), limbal redness (both p = 0.04), corneal neovascularization (both p = 0.003), and papillary conjunctivitis (p<0.0001,p = 0.005) were significantly worse in SM CL wearers compared with both the non-CL wearers and PM CL wearers, respectively. Conjunctival staining was significantly worse in the SM cohort compared with the PM cohort (p = 0.01). 38.6% of the SM compared with 22.8% of the PM CL wearers, had an inappropriate refractive correction (p = 0.006). SM CL wearers wore CLs significantly more years (mean and median 1 year,p = 0.008), for more daily hours (mean and median of 2 hours,p<0.00001), and tended to nap or sleep with their CLs compared with the PM CL wearers (47 vs. 29,p = 0.02). The cohorts did not differ in their subjective symptoms.
conclusionsComplications are significantly more prevalent in SM CL wearers compared with PM CL wearers, and SM CL wearers tend to wear CLs with incorrect powers, and are less compliant with napping or sleeping with the CLs compared with PM CL wearers. These findings emphasize the importance of fitting, patient education and follow-ups in CL wearers.
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.