Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39825693›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025

Repeatability of lipid layer thickness using LipiView® following removal of contact lenses and its relationship to comfort.

Mukesh Kumar, Simin Masoudi, Ajay Kumar Vijay, Thomas John Naduvilath, Srikanth Dumpati, Ankit Raj, Mark Willcox

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Repeatability of lipid layer thickness using LipiView® following removal of contact lenses and its relationship to comfort.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mukesh KumarSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8266-633X
Simin MasoudiSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ajay Kumar VijaySchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Thomas John NaduvilathSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Srikanth DumpatiSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ankit RajLV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Mark WillcoxSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the repeatability of lipid layer thickness (LLT) measurement using the LipiView® interferometer after daily disposable contact lens (CL) wear and correlation with ocular comfort in soft contact lens wearers.

methodsA prospective study was conducted over two consecutive months, wherein CL wearers (n = 20) wore either Somofilcon A or Verofilcon A daily disposable CLs in a crossover design, switching lenses after 1 month. The pre-corneal tear film LLT was measured at the end of each month after CLs had been worn for at least 6 h. Using the LipiView® interferometer, three measurements of the LLT (average, maximum and minimum) were recorded. Subjects' symptoms were evaluated with the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) and correlations sought between post-lens pre-corneal tear film LLT and symptoms.

resultsThe average, maximum and minimum intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of LLT measurements at baseline were 0.57, 0.39 and 0.66, respectively, indicating poor (ICC < 0.4) to moderate (≥0.4, <0.75) repeatability. Coefficients of repeatability (CR) were 20.4, 24.8 and 20.8, respectively. After daily disposable CL wear, the ICC values were 0.66, 0.72 and 0.63 (indicating moderate repeatability), with CR values of 25.7, 32.0 and 23.3, respectively. Although all the ICC values of the pre-corneal LLT increased after daily disposable lens wear indicating improved repeatability, the CR values also increased, indicating larger spread of data. However, in both cases, these increases were not significantly different from baseline. There were no significant differences in pre-corneal LLT between the two lens types and no significant correlation with comfort scores (baseline: r = -0.11, p = 0.67; Verofilcon A lenses: r = 0.19, p = 0.45; Somofilcon A lenses r = 0.13, p = 0.62) for either lens.

conclusionsThe repeatability of average, maximum and minimum LLT measurements performed by LipiView remained stable during CL wear. There was no significant correlation between LLT and comfort scores.

Indexed as

Contact Lenses, HydrophilicCorneaDry Eye SyndromesInterferometryLipidsTearsAdultCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultLipidsCLDEQ‐8contact lensLipiViewocular comfortrepeatability

Identifiers

PMID39825693
PMCPMC11823317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.