ArticleClinical optometry2026
Attitudes Towards the Use of Silicone Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses (Verofilcon A) Among Neophyte Wearers: Results of a Short-Term Evaluation.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the intention to continue wearing silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses (CLs) in verofilcon A (PRECISION1 Methods: A prospective, single-masked, single-arm clinical trial, was conducted at the University of Milano-Bicocca on ninety-five ametropic non-contact lens wearers (52 females and 43 males; mean age ± SD: 25.4 ± 5.3 years; range: 18-40). Participants were fitted in verofilcon A daily disposable CLs, and after receiving training on lens application and removal, were instructed to wear them for 14 days (at least 5 days a week, minimum 5 hours a day). At the follow-up visit, participants completed a series of subjective evaluations (0-100 visual analogue scales; VAS) referring to their experience over the 14-day with lens insertion and removal, comfort at insertion, end of day comfort, quality of vision, and overall satisfaction. They also rated their intention to continue CLs wear (0-100 VAS scale) and indicated their main reasons for doing so. Results: The mean (± SD) CL power prescribed was -1.90±1.42 D (range +2.00 to -6.00) for the right eye and -1.86±1.43 D (range +1.50 to -6.00) for the left eye. At the follow-up visit, monocular visual acuity with CLs was -0.15±0.08 logMAR in both eyes and -0.20±0.07 logMAR binocularly. Hierarchical regression analysis incorporating motivation-to-continue wear variables accounted for 57% of the variance. Three motivational factors (aesthetic, convenience, and sport) were significant predictors of the intention to continue CL wear. Conclusion: Providing ametropic non-CL wearers with a structured, evidence-based CL fitting experience can be an effective strategy to promote long-term CL adoption. Behavioral intention to continue daily disposable CL wear was mainly influenced by motivational factors related to aesthetics, convenience and sport activities.
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.