ArticleCureus2025
Patient Preferences and Satisfaction With Refractive Error Correction Methods: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seasonal Effects on Corneal Densitometry and Haze After Mitomycin C-Assisted Photorefractive Keratectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Compliance With Daily Disposable Contact Lens Replacement Among Contact Lens Wearers: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Impact of Refractive Surgery on Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction: A Six-Month Assessment in Palestine.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUncorrected refractive error (RE) is a leading cause of visual impairment. Correction through glasses, contact lenses (CL), or refractive surgery (RS) is crucial to prevent functional and quality-of-life limitations. This study aimed to evaluate the factors affecting the patient preferences regarding the correction methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was employed, including 451 patients (346 females; mean age: 24.30 ± 6.2 years) with RE corrected by either glasses, CL, or RS. A structured questionnaire was used that included demographics, clinical characteristics, preferences, and satisfaction.
resultsThe demographics and the extent of refractive error significantly influenced the selection of correction methods (p = 0.00). Professional recommendations (66.0%) and cost considerations (47.1%) are the main motivations for acquiring spectacles. They avoided CL due to side effects (69.9%) and maintenance difficulties (54.9%). In the CL groups, the primary motivation was cosmesis (82.2%, p > 0.05), while they avoided glasses due to inconvenience (59.6%). Neither group chose RS due to associated side effects (45.8% and 55.5%, respectively) and insufficient information regarding the procedure (39.2% and 47.9%, respectively). The primary motivations for RS are the inconvenience associated with glasses and CLs (73.3%) and aesthetic concerns (67.1%). They avoided spectacles due to inconvenience (70.4%) and unsatisfactory cosmetics (67.8%), whereas CLs were avoided due to concerns about potential side effects (67.1%) and maintenance challenges (68.4%). The RS group exhibited a significantly (P<0.001) higher satisfaction rate at 88.8%, compared to the glasses group at 71.9% and the CL group at 63.0%. Discomfort (30.1%) and cosmesis (29.4%) significantly influenced dissatisfaction with glasses (p = 0.00). Related side effects (60.3%), limitations during swimming (56.2%), maintenance difficulties (43.2%), and cost (15.1%) significantly influenced dissatisfaction with CL (p = 0.00).
conclusionBased on self-reported satisfaction scores, RS users expressed the highest levels of satisfaction, followed by CL and spectacle users. Patient preferences appeared to be influenced by cost, comfort, and cosmetic concerns.
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.