硅水凝胶与水凝胶软性隐形眼镜在患者报告的眼睛舒适度和安全性方面的差异:Cochrane 系统综述摘要。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Optometry and Vision Science Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000002161
Darian Travis, Kristina Haworth, Louis Leslie, Daniel Fuller, Andrew D Pucker
{"title":"硅水凝胶与水凝胶软性隐形眼镜在患者报告的眼睛舒适度和安全性方面的差异:Cochrane 系统综述摘要。","authors":"Darian Travis, Kristina Haworth, Louis Leslie, Daniel Fuller, Andrew D Pucker","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>This work is significant because it is the first Cochrane systemic review that compares the comfort and safety of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel soft contact lenses (SCL).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to conduct a systemic review of randomized trials comparing the comfort and safety of silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE.com , PubMed, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on or before June 24, 2022, to identify randomized clinical trials that compared silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven trials were identified and evaluated. One trial reported Ocular Surface Disease Index results, with the evidence being very uncertain about the effects of SCL material on Ocular Surface Disease Index scores (mean difference, -1.20; 95% confidence interval, -10.49 to 8.09). Three trials reported visual analog scale comfort score results, with no clear difference in comfort between materials, although results were of low certainty; trial results could not be combined because the three trials reported results at different time points. None of the included trials reported Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire 8 or Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness scores. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference (>0.5 unit) between daily disposable silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs in corneal staining, conjunctival staining, or conjunctival redness (very low certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The overall evidence for a difference between all included silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCL trials was of very low certainty, with most trials judged as having a high overall risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to support recommending one SCL material over the other. Future well-designed trials are needed to generate high certainty evidence to further clarify differences in SCL material comfort and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":" ","pages":"547-555"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel soft contact lenses for differences in patient-reported eye comfort and safety: A Cochrane systematic review summary.\",\"authors\":\"Darian Travis, Kristina Haworth, Louis Leslie, Daniel Fuller, Andrew D Pucker\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>This work is significant because it is the first Cochrane systemic review that compares the comfort and safety of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel soft contact lenses (SCL).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to conduct a systemic review of randomized trials comparing the comfort and safety of silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE.com , PubMed, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on or before June 24, 2022, to identify randomized clinical trials that compared silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven trials were identified and evaluated. One trial reported Ocular Surface Disease Index results, with the evidence being very uncertain about the effects of SCL material on Ocular Surface Disease Index scores (mean difference, -1.20; 95% confidence interval, -10.49 to 8.09). Three trials reported visual analog scale comfort score results, with no clear difference in comfort between materials, although results were of low certainty; trial results could not be combined because the three trials reported results at different time points. None of the included trials reported Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire 8 or Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness scores. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference (>0.5 unit) between daily disposable silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs in corneal staining, conjunctival staining, or conjunctival redness (very low certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The overall evidence for a difference between all included silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCL trials was of very low certainty, with most trials judged as having a high overall risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to support recommending one SCL material over the other. Future well-designed trials are needed to generate high certainty evidence to further clarify differences in SCL material comfort and safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Optometry and Vision Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"547-555\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Optometry and Vision Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002161\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

意义:目的:本研究旨在对比较硅水凝胶和水凝胶软性隐形眼镜(SCL)舒适性和安全性的随机试验进行系统综述:方法:检索 2022 年 6 月 24 日或之前的 CENTRAL、MEDLINE Ovid、EMBASE.com、PubMed、LILACS、ClinicalTrials.gov 和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台,以确定比较硅水凝胶和水凝胶 SCL 的随机临床试验:结果:确定并评估了七项试验。其中一项试验报告了眼表疾病指数结果,证据显示SCL材料对眼表疾病指数评分的影响非常不确定(平均差异为-1.20;95%置信区间为-10.49至8.09)。三项试验报告了视觉模拟量表舒适度评分结果,不同材料的舒适度无明显差异,但结果的确定性较低;由于三项试验报告的时间点不同,因此无法合并试验结果。所纳入的试验均未报告隐形眼镜干眼症问卷 8 或眼干标准患者评估评分。没有证据表明日抛型硅水凝胶和水凝胶SCL在角膜染色、结膜染色或结膜发红方面存在有临床意义的差异(>0.5个单位):所有纳入的硅水凝胶和水凝胶SCL试验之间存在差异的总体证据确定性很低,大多数试验被判定为总体偏倚风险较高。没有足够的证据支持推荐一种SCL材料而非另一种。未来需要设计良好的试验来产生高确定性的证据,以进一步明确SCL材料在舒适性和安全性方面的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel soft contact lenses for differences in patient-reported eye comfort and safety: A Cochrane systematic review summary.

Significance: This work is significant because it is the first Cochrane systemic review that compares the comfort and safety of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel soft contact lenses (SCL).

Purpose: This study aimed to conduct a systemic review of randomized trials comparing the comfort and safety of silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs.

Methods: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE.com , PubMed, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on or before June 24, 2022, to identify randomized clinical trials that compared silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs.

Results: Seven trials were identified and evaluated. One trial reported Ocular Surface Disease Index results, with the evidence being very uncertain about the effects of SCL material on Ocular Surface Disease Index scores (mean difference, -1.20; 95% confidence interval, -10.49 to 8.09). Three trials reported visual analog scale comfort score results, with no clear difference in comfort between materials, although results were of low certainty; trial results could not be combined because the three trials reported results at different time points. None of the included trials reported Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire 8 or Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness scores. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference (>0.5 unit) between daily disposable silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs in corneal staining, conjunctival staining, or conjunctival redness (very low certainty evidence).

Conclusions: The overall evidence for a difference between all included silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCL trials was of very low certainty, with most trials judged as having a high overall risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to support recommending one SCL material over the other. Future well-designed trials are needed to generate high certainty evidence to further clarify differences in SCL material comfort and safety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Optometry and Vision Science
Optometry and Vision Science 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Optometry and Vision Science is the monthly peer-reviewed scientific publication of the American Academy of Optometry, publishing original research since 1924. Optometry and Vision Science is an internationally recognized source for education and information on current discoveries in optometry, physiological optics, vision science, and related fields. The journal considers original contributions that advance clinical practice, vision science, and public health. Authors should remember that the journal reaches readers worldwide and their submissions should be relevant and of interest to a broad audience. Topical priorities include, but are not limited to: clinical and laboratory research, evidence-based reviews, contact lenses, ocular growth and refractive error development, eye movements, visual function and perception, biology of the eye and ocular disease, epidemiology and public health, biomedical optics and instrumentation, novel and important clinical observations and treatments, and optometric education.
期刊最新文献
Case report: Acute macular neuroretinopathy post-COVID-19 infection. Exploring cognitive overload in adults with visual impairment: The association between concentration and fatigue. A pilot study of the impact of repeated blink refrainment on ocular surface temperature and the interblink period. Extended release of ciprofloxacin from commercial silicone-hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lenses containing vitamin E diffusion barriers. Efficacy comparison of repeated low-level red-light therapy and orthokeratology lenses for myopia control.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1