Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Visual Performance of Two Daily Disposable Multifocal Contact Lenses in Presbyopic Soft Lens Wearers.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To measure high contrast visual acuity (HCVA) when presbyopic soft contact lens (CL) wearers, requiring a spectacle addition from +0.75 to +1.75 dioptres were fit bilaterally with delefilcon A daily disposable multifocal (DT1 MF) CLs and senofilcon A daily disposable multifocal (AOM MF) CLs. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-masked, cross-over, non-inferiority study, presbyopic CL wearers wore two types of multifocal CLs for 1 hour each. HCVA was measured monocularly and binocularly at 6m, 66cm and 40cm under photopic and mesopic conditions. Participants rated subjective visual clarity (0-100 scale, 100=very clear) after each HCVA assessment. Pupil size was assessed under photopic and mesopic conditions. Results: Twenty-eight participants (48.6 ± 5.3 years) completed the study. DT1 MF was non-inferior to AOM MF in HCVA at 6m, 66cm and 40cm in photopic and mesopic conditions for the dominant and non-dominant eye, and binocularly. There were no statistically significant differences between lenses for subjective visual clarity ratings for any of the viewing distances, whether evaluated for photopic or mesopic conditions for the dominant or non-dominant eye or binocularly. Mean pupil size in the dominant eye was 3.6 ± 0.5mm (2.6 to 4.5mm) and 5.1 ± 0.8mm (2.8 to 6.1mm) in photopic and mesopic conditions respectively. HCVA under photopic or mesopic illumination at 6m, 66cm or 40cm was not associated with pupil size (Pearson correlation, all p>0.05). Conclusion: Both lenses provided good vision across a variety of distances at high and low illumination. DT1 MF was non-inferior to AOM MF in HCVA under photopic and mesopic illumination at distance, intermediate and near. HCVA at all distances with both study lenses was independent of pupil size. Despite their different design, both study lenses performed equally well and provide a suitable vision correction for presbyopic CL wearers, irrespective of pupil size.
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.