ArticleHeliyon2024
Randomised controlled trial of HOYA one-day multifocal contact lenses: The HOMCL trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trial design: Double-masked crossover RCT (Research Registry: #8136) comparison of a new HOYA one-day disposable multifocal contact lens (HOMCL) with Alcon DAILIES TOTAL1® Multifocal (ADT1). Methods: Sixty presbyopic participants from three countries attended for baseline measurements and fitting of both lens types and then for a fortnight completed daily diaries of symptoms with habitual optical correction, and VF-14 questionnaire. Participants collected either HOMCL or ADT1, when the vision was measured again, and they wore this product for a fortnight, completing daily diaries and VF-14. Participants then collected the other type and had vision and symptoms recorded in the same way. Results: There were no serious adverse events. Primary outcomes were no significant differences between the lens types in willingness to purchase nor stated preference; no significant differences in the daily symptom ratings of comfort; statistically significant findings with the daily symptom ratings and VF-14 of better near vision with HOMCL and better distance vision with ADT1. Secondary outcomes were better high contrast distance visual acuity with ADT1 (<1 line), better low contrast distance visual acuity with ADT1; faster Wilkins rate of reading test with HOMCL; no significant differences in near visual acuity, wearing time, or number of lenses required during fitting process. Exploratory analyses were better handling scores with ADT1; and some, but not all of the dry eye data indicating better acceptance of HOMCL by patients with relatively dry eyes. For all measures, there were some participants who preferred/performed better with each lens type. Conclusions: The differences between the performance of the two products were small. There was a trend in some clinical measurements and the daily diary data and VF-14 questionnaire, for HOMCL to outperform ADT1 for near vision and vice versa for distance vision.
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.