Trial reportOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Optical characterisation and vision quality assessment of two myopia control contact lenses.
Trial report 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 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optical characterisation and vision quality assessment of two myopia control contact lenses.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis investigation examined the image and vision quality of two commercially available daily disposable myopia control soft contact lenses.
methodsWavefront errors were measured with an SHS Ophthalmic aberrometer for two myopia control soft contact lenses: a coaxially designed dual-focus lens (omafilcon A, CooperVision MiSight® 1 day, MS1d) and a design employing multiple add powers that included non-coaxial optics in annular add zones (senofilcon A, Johnson & Johnson Vision ACUVUE® Abiliti™ 1-Day, AB). Geometric optics ray tracing generated point-spread functions and wave optics were used to compare modulation transfer functions (MTFs) and simulated letter images. Twenty-six myopic children completed a randomised, non-dispensing, contralateral double-masked clinical trial. After 1 h of wear, right and left eye visual acuity (VA), subjective vision quality and lens preference (Likert) were assessed while viewing monocularly.
resultsThe lens containing non-coaxial optics employed a small central zone with approximately +10.00 D of added power and two annular rings with a power gradient typical of non-coaxial optics. The coaxial design contained a centre zone with a distance correction and two annular zones with a fixed add power of approximately +2.00 D. MTFs and simulated images were better with small pupils, which was most noticeable with the coaxial design. Distance VA was -0.02 ± 0.04 with MS1d and 0.09 ± 0.08 with AB, p < 0.01. The majority of participants (77%) reported a preference for one lens; 54% preferred the MS1d and 23% preferred the AB lens.
conclusionsMyopia control contact lenses employing coaxial or a mixture of coaxial and non-coaxial optics both reduced retinal image contrast but successfully imaged high spatial frequencies and provided high quality of vision. Image and vision quality were slightly superior in the lens employing coaxial optics alone.
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.