Trial reportClinical optometry2026
Clinical Performance and Wearer Experience with Two Contemporary Daily Disposable Silicone Hydrogel Lenses.
Trial report in Clinical optometry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04305912 (Comparison of Verofilcon A Daily Disposable Lenses to Somofilcon A Daily Disposable Lenses), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Verofilcon A Daily Disposable Lenses to Somofilcon A Daily Disposable Lenses
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
Objective: To compare the clinical performance and wearer experience of two contemporary spherical daily disposable silicone hydrogel lenses, somofilcon A and verofilcon A. Methods: In this prospective, double-masked, bilateral, randomized, crossover study, habitual contact lens wearers were recruited at a single site. Participants wore somofilcon A or verofilcon A lenses bilaterally on a daily disposable basis for one week, then crossed over to the alternate lens. The primary endpoint was participant-reported handling (insertion and removal) at the 1-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included lens fit, surface wettability and deposits, non-invasive tear break-up time (NITBUT), visual acuity, subjective comfort, satisfaction, preference, diary ratings, and slit-lamp ocular health. Results: Of 51 participants screened, 47 completed the study. Handling ratings were high for both lenses, with no differences for insertion. Removal handling was slightly higher for somofilcon A on Day 1 (9.2 ± 1.2 vs 8.6 ± 2.1; p = 0.02), though not clinically meaningful. Verofilcon A showed marginally better centration at dispensing and 1 week, and somofilcon A demonstrated slightly better visual acuity at 1 week and lower deposition at dispensing; however, all differences were small and not clinically meaningful. No significant between-lens differences were observed for movement, fit, NITBUT, wettability, comfort, dryness, vision clarity, satisfaction, or preference (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both lenses showed high and comparable clinical and subjective performance over one week. While minor statistical differences were observed, none were clinically meaningful, indicating similar performance across handling, fit, vision, tear stability, and wearer-reported outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04305912.
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.