Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2019
Assessing a modified fitting approach for improved multifocal contact lens fitting.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Merchea Mohinder, Evans David, Kannarr Shane, Miller Jason, Kaplan Michael, Nixon Laura
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of a modified and previous fitting guide for multifocal (MF) contact lenses that share a common optical design, lotrafilcon B, nelfilcon A, and delefilcon A, in current soft contact lens (CL) wearers needing presbyopia correction.
METHODS: This international multicenter, prospective, randomized, subject-masked study assessed the superiority of the modified guide relative to the previous guide as determined by the number of MF CLs needed to successfully fit each eye at the screening/fitting visit.
RESULTS: A total of 183 presbyopic subjects were randomized to fitting using the modified (n = 99) and previous (n = 84) MF CL fitting guides. The mean ± SD numbers of lenses required to fit each eye at the screening/fitting visit using the modified and previous fitting guides were 1.2 ± 0.5 and 1.4 ± 0.5, respectively. The least-squares mean difference (0.2) met predetermined criteria for superiority of the modified fitting guide. At the screening/fitting visit, 82.8% (164/108) and 65.1% (105/166) of presbyopic eyes were fit with one pair of MF lenses using the modified and previous guides, respectively, and 98.0% (194/198) of eyes were fit with 1-2 pairs of MF lenses using the modified guide. A higher percentage of eye care practitioners gave the highest ratings for ease of fit for the modified than for the previous fitting guide (63.6% [7/11] vs 33.3% [3/9]).
CONCLUSIONS: The modified fitting guide was superior at reducing the number of MF lenses required to successfully fit each presbyopic patient.
METHODS: This international multicenter, prospective, randomized, subject-masked study assessed the superiority of the modified guide relative to the previous guide as determined by the number of MF CLs needed to successfully fit each eye at the screening/fitting visit.
RESULTS: A total of 183 presbyopic subjects were randomized to fitting using the modified (n = 99) and previous (n = 84) MF CL fitting guides. The mean ± SD numbers of lenses required to fit each eye at the screening/fitting visit using the modified and previous fitting guides were 1.2 ± 0.5 and 1.4 ± 0.5, respectively. The least-squares mean difference (0.2) met predetermined criteria for superiority of the modified fitting guide. At the screening/fitting visit, 82.8% (164/108) and 65.1% (105/166) of presbyopic eyes were fit with one pair of MF lenses using the modified and previous guides, respectively, and 98.0% (194/198) of eyes were fit with 1-2 pairs of MF lenses using the modified guide. A higher percentage of eye care practitioners gave the highest ratings for ease of fit for the modified than for the previous fitting guide (63.6% [7/11] vs 33.3% [3/9]).
CONCLUSIONS: The modified fitting guide was superior at reducing the number of MF lenses required to successfully fit each presbyopic patient.