ArticleCureus2024
A Comparison of Subjective Symptoms of Two Types of Silicone Hydrogel One-Day Disposable Contact Lenses.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Comparison of the Influence of Two Types of Silicone Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses on Clinical Signs of Allergic Conjunctivitis Symptoms.Clinical optometry · 2026Trial
- Association Between Binocular Vision Disorders and Contact Lens Discomfort During Soft Contact Lens Wear: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the comfort and discomfort of two types of soft contact lenses (SCLs) by comparing their quality of vision, fit, subjective dryness, and handling.
methodsA total of 62 SCL wearers with contact lens (CL) discomfort were recruited. They were fitted with narafilcon A and verofilcon A for two weeks each by crossover. The comfort of the two types of SCLs was compared by having each participant answer a modified 5-Item Dry Eye Questionnaire (m-DEQ5, scores for vision, wearing comfort, and handling: the total score of the five items is a maximum of 25, higher being better) and modified Japanese version of the 8-item Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (m-J-CLDEQ-8: scores for discomfort and dry eye symptoms: the total score of the eight items is a maximum of 44; lower is better) survey forms. Results
conclusionVerofilcon A provided excellent vision, comfort, and ease of handling and was less likely to cause dry eye symptoms or eye discomfort. These results suggest that verofilcon A is an excellent option for patients with dry eye symptoms and CL discomfort.
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.