ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2025
The impact of various daily disposable contact lens materials on contrast sensitivity.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the effects of three different daily disposable contact lens materials on contrast sensitivity.
methodsThe participants were aged 18-45 years, with spherical equivalent refraction between -0.50 D and -6.00 D, astigmatism below 0.75 D, and best contact lens-corrected visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR or better. Each patient was fitted binocularly with three daily disposable contact lenses made of different materials on three separate examination days. These materials were kalifilcon A, senofilcon A, and verofilcon A. The contrast sensitivity of each patient was recorded at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) under photopic (85 cd/m2) and mesopic (3 cd/m2) conditions.
resultsThe current study comprised 72 eyes of 34 female and two male patients. The mean age of the participants was 25.63 (± 0.80) years. Under photopic conditions, the participants' contrast sensitivity was significantly better with senofilcon A than with kalifilcon A at a frequency of 12 cpd (p=0.008). Under mesopic conditions, participants' contrast sensitivity was significantly higher with kalifilcon A than verofilcon A at 3 cpd (p=0.001), and with senofilcon A than verofilcon A at 12 cpd (p=0.004). The pre-lens non-invasive break-up times did not differ significantly between the three daily disposable contact lenses (p>0.05).
conclusionIn both photopic and mesopic lighting conditions, the participants in this study exhibited differences in contrast sensitivity when wearing three different daily disposable contact lens types, despite similar visual acuity and pre-lens tear film stability results in their clinical evaluations. These findings demonstrate the potential for subjective visual complaints arising from variations in the contrast sensitivity achieved by different daily disposable contact lenses.
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.