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}
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
