Kevin J Mena-Guevara, Dolores de Fez, David P Piñero
{"title":"对多焦隐形眼镜远近对比灵敏度影响的系统综述。","authors":"Kevin J Mena-Guevara, Dolores de Fez, David P Piñero","doi":"10.1097/ICL.0000000000001149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the impact on distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS) after fitting multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) for presbyopia correction according to the scientific evidence already published.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three bibliographic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were articles written in English evaluating distance and/or near CS in presbyopic patients using MFCLs, controlled clinical trials, and articles published from 2000 to 2024. After reading and analyzing carefully the articles that were finally included, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for clinical trials was used to evaluate the quality of the research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight articles were considered. One study did not find significant changes in binocular contrast sensitivity function (CSF) after fitting center-distance MFCL (CD) in the dominant eye and a center-near (CN) in the nondominant eye. Another research did not detect significant differences comparing CN MFCLs with monovision. However, another study found significant differences when comparing CN MFCL with spectacles. Half of studies only reported the comparison in CSF among different MFCL designs, with two studies confirming worse visual performance with MFCLs compared to pinhole contact lenses. Concerning the CASP analysis, some level of variability in the quality scores was found, with 5/13 in three studies, 6/13 in three studies, 7/13 in one study, and 8/13 in one study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The limited evidence on the impact on CS of using MFCLs does not allow to extract consistent generalizable conclusions, with only three studies suggesting a variable impact and no evidence of the real clinical benefit of using this metric for the evaluation and optimization of MFCL fitting. More research is needed on this topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":50457,"journal":{"name":"Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact on Distance and Near Contrast Sensitivity of Multifocal Contact Lenses: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin J Mena-Guevara, Dolores de Fez, David P Piñero\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ICL.0000000000001149\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the impact on distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS) after fitting multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) for presbyopia correction according to the scientific evidence already published.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three bibliographic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were articles written in English evaluating distance and/or near CS in presbyopic patients using MFCLs, controlled clinical trials, and articles published from 2000 to 2024. After reading and analyzing carefully the articles that were finally included, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for clinical trials was used to evaluate the quality of the research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight articles were considered. One study did not find significant changes in binocular contrast sensitivity function (CSF) after fitting center-distance MFCL (CD) in the dominant eye and a center-near (CN) in the nondominant eye. Another research did not detect significant differences comparing CN MFCLs with monovision. However, another study found significant differences when comparing CN MFCL with spectacles. Half of studies only reported the comparison in CSF among different MFCL designs, with two studies confirming worse visual performance with MFCLs compared to pinhole contact lenses. Concerning the CASP analysis, some level of variability in the quality scores was found, with 5/13 in three studies, 6/13 in three studies, 7/13 in one study, and 8/13 in one study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The limited evidence on the impact on CS of using MFCLs does not allow to extract consistent generalizable conclusions, with only three studies suggesting a variable impact and no evidence of the real clinical benefit of using this metric for the evaluation and optimization of MFCL fitting. More research is needed on this topic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001149\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:根据已有的科学证据,探讨多焦点隐形眼镜(MFCLs)矫正老花眼后配戴对远近对比敏感度(CS)的影响。方法:在PubMed、Web of Sciences和Scopus上进行三种文献检索。纳入标准是用英文撰写的评估使用MFCLs治疗老花眼患者的距离和/或近CS的文章、对照临床试验和2000年至2024年发表的文章。在仔细阅读和分析最终纳入的文章后,使用临床试验的关键评估技能程序(CASP)工具来评估研究的质量。结果:共纳入8篇文献。一项研究未发现双眼对比敏感度功能(CSF)在拟合优势眼中心距离MFCL (CD)和非优势眼中心近距离MFCL (CN)后的显著变化。另一项研究没有发现CN mfcl与单视觉的显著差异。然而,另一项研究发现,在比较CN MFCL与眼镜时存在显著差异。一半的研究只报道了不同MFCL设计的脑脊液比较,其中两项研究证实MFCL与针孔隐形眼镜相比视力表现更差。在CASP分析中,发现质量评分存在一定程度的可变性,3项研究的可变性为5/13,3项研究的可变性为6/13,1项研究的可变性为7/13,1项研究的可变性为8/13。结论:关于使用MFCL对CS影响的有限证据无法得出一致的可推广的结论,只有三项研究表明影响是可变的,没有证据表明使用该指标来评估和优化MFCL拟合的真正临床益处。在这个问题上需要更多的研究。
Impact on Distance and Near Contrast Sensitivity of Multifocal Contact Lenses: A Systematic Review.
Purpose: To investigate the impact on distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS) after fitting multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) for presbyopia correction according to the scientific evidence already published.
Methods: Three bibliographic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were articles written in English evaluating distance and/or near CS in presbyopic patients using MFCLs, controlled clinical trials, and articles published from 2000 to 2024. After reading and analyzing carefully the articles that were finally included, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for clinical trials was used to evaluate the quality of the research.
Results: A total of eight articles were considered. One study did not find significant changes in binocular contrast sensitivity function (CSF) after fitting center-distance MFCL (CD) in the dominant eye and a center-near (CN) in the nondominant eye. Another research did not detect significant differences comparing CN MFCLs with monovision. However, another study found significant differences when comparing CN MFCL with spectacles. Half of studies only reported the comparison in CSF among different MFCL designs, with two studies confirming worse visual performance with MFCLs compared to pinhole contact lenses. Concerning the CASP analysis, some level of variability in the quality scores was found, with 5/13 in three studies, 6/13 in three studies, 7/13 in one study, and 8/13 in one study.
Conclusions: The limited evidence on the impact on CS of using MFCLs does not allow to extract consistent generalizable conclusions, with only three studies suggesting a variable impact and no evidence of the real clinical benefit of using this metric for the evaluation and optimization of MFCL fitting. More research is needed on this topic.
期刊介绍:
Eye & Contact Lens: Science and Clinical Practice is the official journal of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists (CLAO), an international educational association for anterior segment research and clinical practice of interest to ophthalmologists, optometrists, and other vision care providers and researchers. Focusing especially on contact lenses, it also covers dry eye disease, MGD, infections, toxicity of drops and contact lens care solutions, topography, cornea surgery and post-operative care, optics, refractive surgery and corneal stability (eg, UV cross-linking). Peer-reviewed and published six times annually, it is a highly respected scientific journal in its field.