Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42866799›Full record

Trial reportClinical optometry2026

Clinical Performance and Wearer Experience with Two Contemporary Daily Disposable Silicone Hydrogel Lenses.

Karen Walsh, Amir M Moezzi, Sarah Guthrie, Jill Woods, Jose Vega

Registry-linked trialAbstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04305912 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of Verofilcon A Daily Disposable Lenses to Somofilcon A Daily Disposable Lenses

TypeinterventionalSponsorCooperVision, Inc.Ran2020 to 2021Enrolled51ConditionsMyopiaArmssomofilcon A, verofilcon A
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Karen WalshCooperVision, Inc., San Ramon, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9983-5053
Amir M MoezziCentre for Ocular Research & Education, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6660-518X
Sarah GuthrieCentre for Ocular Research & Education, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7282-3848
Jill WoodsCentre for Ocular Research & Education, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5031-791X
Jose VegaCooperVision, Inc., San Ramon, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

contact lenscontact lens discomfortdepositslens handlingpre-lens tear film stabilitywettability

Identifiers

PMID42866799
PMCPMC13657689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.