ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Comparative Evaluation of Scleral Lens Treatment in Ocular Surface Diseases: A Prospective Study.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Scleral Lens Treatment in Ocular Surface Diseases: A Prospective Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and patient-reported outcomes of scleral lens wear across different ocular surface diseases, providing evidence for individualized fitting and management strategies. Methods: Patients with keratoconus, ocular surface trauma, postkeratoplasty, and dry eye were fitted with scleral lenses using OCT-guided customization. All participants underwent baseline examinations before and after lens wear, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), central corneal thickness (CCT), and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) assessment. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life, comfort, visual clarity, handling, cleanliness, and satisfaction, were collected via a standardized questionnaire. Results: BCVA improved significantly in all groups after scleral lens wear, with the postkeratoplasty group showing the least improvement. OSDI scores decreased significantly across the groups. CCT increased after lens wear, indicating mild corneal thickening. The postkeratoplasty group exhibited significantly greater tear reservoir thickness at the superior and superonasal locations compared to the keratoconus and dry eye disease groups. Subjective ratings of handling, cleanliness, and satisfaction revealed no significant differences across the four groups. However, the trauma group reported less improvement in quality of life, and the postkeratoplasty group experienced lower comfort levels compared to the keratoconus group. Overall, 51.3% of patients reported experiencing midday fogging. Conclusions: Scleral lenses offer effective visual rehabilitation and symptom relief across diverse ocular surface diseases, with consistently high levels of patient-reported satisfaction. Future research should focus on individualized fitting strategies, address challenges such as midday fogging, and evaluate long-term safety and efficacy to guide wider clinical applications.
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.