Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Performance of Delefilcon A Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in a Group of Digital Device Users.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the performance of delefilcon A daily disposable contact lenses (CL) in lens wearers who reported heavy digital device use. Patients and Methods: This prospective study involved lens wearers who used digital devices ≥8 hours per day. Delefilcon A CL were dispensed for 2-weeks, to be worn ≥5 days/week, ≥13 hours/day, using digital devices as normal. At-home questionnaires rating comfort, dryness, and clarity of vision (0-100 scale, 100=best) were completed on Days 1, 7, and 14±1 upon insertion, after 8 hours of device use, and before removal. At the Day 14 visit, participants rated overall comfort, dryness, and vision (0-100 scale) and completed a 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire. Results: Thirty-five participants were eligible, 32 completed (27 females; age: 25.3±6.3 years). Median at-home ratings for comfort, dryness, and vision were ≥85, with no difference between days (all p≥0.09). Ratings decreased throughout the day (p≤0.005), except comfort (Day 7) and vision (Days 1 and 7), where ratings before removal were similar to 8 hours of device use (p≥0.014). After 2-weeks, median (range) overall ratings for comfort, dryness, and vision were 96 (70-100), 93 (50-100), and 95 (75-100), respectively. Most agreed the CL performed well, providing good comfort (91%) and vision all-day-long (94%), and did not have dryness with device use (69%). When devices were used ≥8 hours, most felt the CL performed well (84%), were satisfied with comfort (88%) and vision (88%), did not experience eye strain (81%), eye fatigue (66%), or episodes of blurred vision (75%). Conclusion: Delefilcon A lenses provided high satisfaction levels among lens wearers who spent a significant portion of their day using digital devices. Participants rated the CL highly for comfort and vision throughout the day, with most reporting no issues with dryness, eye strain, or blurred vision while wearing lenses and using digital devices.
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.