ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Development of a Sun Protection Factor for contact lenses (CL-SPF).
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSun Protection Factor (SPF) of sunscreen products is well recognised by consumers. This study explored how SPF could be applied to ultraviolet radiation (UV) protection from contact lenses (CL-SPF). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: UV transmission through 15 commercially available contact lenses and three spectacle lens materials was measured with a deuterium light source and spectrophotometer. CL-SPF values were calculated using the standard in vitro method used to test and label skin products. Ray tracing was applied to two sunglass designs to assess the effect of solar angle and head orientation on light reaching the ocular surface. Cellular damage profile of human corneal and conjunctival cells across the UV range was assessed in vitro to inform an SPF equivalent for CLs.
resultsCLs tested fell into three categories: CL-SPF with no UV blocker=1.0-2.0 (equivalent to using no sunscreen); CL-SPF with Class 2 UV blocker=12.3-24.8 (equivalent to SPF15); and CL-SPF with Class 1 UV blocker=59.6-66.2 (equivalent to SPF 50+). Despite the UV-blocking characteristics of sunglasses, ocular surface protection can be substantially reduced at certain solar angle and head orientation combinations; on average, 76%-89% of light was prevented from reaching the ocular surface depending on the intensity of the tint (80%-20% transmission). The data also suggest that cell damage and death of ocular surface cells has a similar profile to that of the skin, but conjunctival cells are more susceptible to UV damage.
conclusionCL-SPF is a viable metric to communicate the protection from the absorption/transmission of UV radiation that CLs offers wearers. However, a contact lens will only project the area of the ocular surface it covers, which is limited to mainly the cornea and internal eye tissues with soft CLs.
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.