Trial reportClinical optometry2025
Wear Experience with a Silicone Hydrogel 1-Week Replacement Lens in Current Wearers of a 2-Week Replacement Lens.
Trial report in Clinical optometry, 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
Purpose: More frequent replacement of contact lenses may be beneficial for ocular health, but satisfied wearers often have prescriptions renewed in the same lens. This study sought to evaluate the wear experience of a newly released 1-week replacement lens among currently satisfied wearers of a 2-week replacement lens. Methods: This open-label, non-comparative study of single vision lenses recruited satisfied wearers of senofilcon A and refit them in serafilcon A. Participants wore the study lenses for two weeks. Assessments included visual acuity and surveys regarding wear experience: the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8); visual analog scale (VAS) ratings of vision quality and comfort; VAS ratings of vision and comfort during a variety of activities; and ratings of convenience, satisfaction and ease of use on a 0 to 10 Likert scale. Results: Sixty-two participants completed the study. Median (interquartile range) distance LogMAR acuity with the study lenses was -0.15 (0.12) OD, -0.16 (0.10) OS, and -0.22 (0.08) OU. The median (IQR) CLDEQ-8 score was 10 (10). Median (IQR) VAS responses were 91 (22) for overall quality of vision and 83 (30), for overall comfort. Median VAS responses regarding specific activities ranged from 87 to 91 for vision and 81 to 90 for comfort. Median (IQR) ratings were 8 (2) for convenience, 10 (1) for ease of use, and 9 (2) for satisfaction. Conclusion: In this study, satisfied wearers of a commonly prescribed 2-week replacement soft contact lens reported median wear experience VAS scores in the upper quartile for all assessments of vision and comfort and a median CLDEQ-8 score below that associated with dryness. Findings suggest that these lenses are a viable option for practitioners interested in the weekly replacement modality of soft 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.