Purpose: To analyze critically the clinical trials on presbyopia correction with contact lenses (CLs) to investigate the quality of the research performed.
Methods: A search was performed in PubMed database on clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of the presbyopia correction with different CLs, including multifocal or simultaneous vision contact lenses (MCLs). After a comprehensive analysis of the relevant publications found, quality assessment of such publications was performed by means of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool according to the five types of evaluations: MCL versus spectacles, MCL versus pinhole CLs, MCL versus monovision, comparison between MCL designs, and MCL versus extended depth of focus CLs.
Results: A total of 16 clinical trials were selected for evaluation. All evaluated studies addressed a clearly focused research question and were randomized, with a crossover design in most of the cases. Blinding was not possible in all cases due to the physical appearance of some of the CLs evaluated (pinhole or hybrid designs). Most of studies analyzed reported outcomes with complete data, providing the statistical tests used and the P -values, but some of the authors did not provide the statistical power associated to the sample size evaluated. The small sample size in some trials as well as the scarce information about the effect of addition on visual performance was the main limitations found in the peer-reviewed literature revised.
Conclusions: There is a high-quality scientific evidence supporting the use of presbyopia-correcting CLs, with several randomized controlled clinical trials conducted to this date.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001013 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!