Trial reportScientific reports2026
Prospective pilot randomized controlled study of mini-scleral lenses versus rigid gas permeable lenses in irregular cornea with dry eye.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This single-blind prospective pilot randomized controlled study compared mini-scleral lenses (mSLs) and rigid gas-permeable lenses (RGP) in patients with irregular astigmatism and dry eye disease (DED). Forty patients (78 eyes) were fitted with mSLs (18 patients, 35 eyes) or RGP (22 patients, 43 eyes), and followed at baseline, 1 week, 1, 3 and 6 months. Evaluations included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), contact lens-corrected visual acuity (CLCVA), tear break-up time (TBUT), slit-lamp biomicroscopy, Anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) scores and visual fluctuations. At 6 months, CLCVA was better than BSCVA in both groups (P < 0.001), with greater ∆VA (UCVA–CLCVA) improvement in RGP (P = 0.017, η2p = 0.085). Both groups showed reductions in OSDI (P = 0.001, η2p = 0.282) and CLDEQ-8 scores (P = 0.018, η2p = 0.159), with mSLs consistently showing lower CLDEQ-8 scores. Visual fluctuations were less frequent in the mSLs group (P = 0.006, η2p = 0.876). TBUT did not differ significantly. mSLs improve corrected visual acuity and provide better subjective comfort in irregular astigmatism and DED, representing a valuable treatment option. However, larger-scale studies are needed to clarify the advantages of the two 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.