ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of refraction, presbyopia, and dry eye-related parameters between monofocal and multifocal contact lens users.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 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
purposeTo investigate factors associated with multifocal contact lens (CL) use or prescription for presbyopia correction. STUDY
designRetrospective cross-sectional
methodsOverall, 3264 CL users were assessed and categorized into three age groups; 40s (aged 40-49 years), 50s (aged 50-59 years), and 60s (aged 60-69 years). Refraction, near add power, dry eye-related parameters, and visual acuity were compared between monofocal and multifocal CL users in each age group. The odds ratios of factors for using multifocal CLs were calculated.
resultsMultifocal CL users tended to be older across all age groups and were more likely to be male, aged in their 40s and 50s, and have lower degrees of myopia and astigmatism. In the 50s and 60s groups, multifocal CL users also showed better CL-corrected visual acuity, smaller differences between best-corrected and CL-corrected vision, and less under-correction. Near addition of CL was significantly higher in multifocal CL users in the 40s group. Among dry eye-related parameters, multifocal CL users had higher Schirmer values in the 40s and 60s groups, longer tear break-up time in the 50s group, and fewer keratopathies in the 40s and 50s groups. Odds ratios for multifocal CL use were significant for age, spherical equivalent, and astigmatism across all age groups, Schirmer values in the 40s and 50s groups, and tear break-up time and keratopathy were significantly higher in the 50s group.
conclusionMultifocal CLs were more likely to be prescribed for users with lower refractive errors and healthier ocular surfaces. The current findings may contribute to optimizing CL prescriptions and presbyopia management strategies.
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.