ArticleHeliyon2024
Comfort advantages demonstrated with a novel soft contact lens: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07488208 (Crossover Comparison of Two Novel Stenfilcon A Contact Lens Designs), which is not on this 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.
Crossover Comparison of Two Novel Stenfilcon A Contact Lens Designs
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Purpose: To compare comfort outcomes between a novel daily disposable contact lens - designed to maximize comfort - and an established control. The hypothesis was that the test lens would be superior to the control for four key comfort questionnaire items: end-of-day comfort, all-day comfort, visual comfort while driving at night, and reduction of ocular fatigue from digital device use. Methods: This randomized, controlled, subject-masked, parallel-arm study enrolled young (18-39 years), healthy, myopic, contact lens wearers with an up-to-date prescription at 19 investigational sites in the United States. Subjects wore either the test (ACUVUE® OASYS MAX 1-Day, senofilcon A) or control (Dailies Total1®, delefilcon A) lens for 2 weeks of bilateral, daily disposable wear before completing comfort questionnaire items, each of which had 5 or 6 response options. For each item, the odds ratio for positive (top-two-box) responses was estimated from a binomial generalized linear mixed model. A gatekeeping approach combined with the truncated Hochberg procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Results: Of 344 enrolled subjects, 342 subjects were randomized and dispensed lenses, with 171 subjects per lens group. Among the 342 subjects, 68.4% were female, 83.6% were White, and the average age was 29.7 (±5.53) years. The test lens was statistically superior to the control for all four comfort questions: odds ratios (test vs. control) were 2.01 (95% CI: 1.25, 3.22) for end-of-day comfort, 2.17 (alpha-adjusted CI: 1.30, 3.64) for all-day comfort, 2.00 (alpha-adjusted CI: 1.18, 3.41) for reducing ocular fatigue from digital device use, and 1.77 (95% CI: 1.04, 3.02) for comfortable vision while driving at night. Conclusion: The test lens demonstrated statistically superior physical and visual comfort, as measured by the four comfort endpoints, compared to the control. The test lens had significantly greater odds of favorable responses for all comfort items compared to the control.
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.