Omafilcon a (Proclear) soft contact lenses in a dry eye population

CLAO Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 40-47

  Lemp, Michael A ^d   Caffery, Barbara ^d   Lebow, Kenneth ^d   Lembach, Richard ^d   Park, Juliana ^d   Foulks, Gary ^d   Hall, Brenda ^a   Bowers, Roderick ^b   McGarvey, Shirley ^d   Young, Graeme ^c  

^a BIOCOMPATIBLES UK LTD   (United Kingdom)

^b Biocompatibles Inc   (United States)

^c Visioncare Research Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^d The Courtyard ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORESCEIN; ROSE BENGAL;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DRY EYE; EYE IRRITATION; FLUORESCENCE; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; HYDROPHILIC CONTACT LENS; LENS POWER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEIBOMIAN GLAND; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCHIRMER TEST; SOFT CONTACT LENS; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; WATER CONTENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONTACT LENSES, HYDROPHILIC; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DRY EYE SYNDROMES; HUMANS; HYDROGEL; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; REFRACTIVE ERRORS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0032905019     PISSN: 07338902     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Young G, Bowers R, Hall B, et al: Six month clinical evaluation of a biomimetic hydrogel contact lens. CLAO J 1997;23:226-236.
2. Young G, Bowers R, Hall B, et al: Clinical comparison of omafilcon-A with four control materials. CLAO J 1997;23:249-258.
3. Lebow K, Bridgewater B: A three-month comparative daily-wear study of two high-water-content soft lenses. ICLC 1997;24:198-205.
4. Doughty MJ, Fonn D, Richter D, et al: A patient questionnaire approach to estimating the prevalence of dry eye symptoms in patients presenting to optometric practices across Canada. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:624-631.
5. Poggio EC, Abelson MB: Complications and symptoms with disposable daily wear contact lenses and conventional soft daily wear contact lenses. CLAO J 1993;19:95-102.
6. Hamano T, Mitsunaga S, Kotani S, et al: Tear volume in relation to contact lens wear and age. CLAO J 1990;16:57-61.
7. Fonn D, Pritchard N, Brazeau D, et al: Discontinuation of contact lens wear: the number, reasons and patient profiles. Invest Ophth Vis Sci 1995;36:s312.
8. Fonn D: Discontinuation of contact lens wear and its effect on the growth of business. CL Spectrum 1996;Sept(Suppl):4-5.
9. Lemp MA: Report of the National Eye Institute/Industry Workshop on the clinical trials in dry eyes. CLAO J 1995;21:221-232.
10. Guillon J-P: Dry eye in contact lens wear. Optician 1997;214(5622):18-25.
11. Lowther GE: Comparison of hydrogel contact lens patients with and without the symptom of dryness. ICLC 1993;20:191-194.
12. Carlsson AM: Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983;16:87-101.
13. Maxwell C: Sensitivity and accuracy of the visual analogue scale: a psychological classroom experiment. Br J Clin Pharm 1978;34:50-59.
14. Pritchard N, Fonn D, Weed K: Ocular and subjective responses to frequent replacement of daily wear soft contact lenses. CLAO J 1996;22(1):53-59.
15. Efron N, Morgan S, Morgan P: Clinical performance of a daily wear, daily disposable soft contact lens. Optician 1995;210(5517):18-22.
16. La Hood D: Edge shape and comfort of rigid lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988;65:613-618.
17. Snyder C, Hammack GG: Daily disposable hydrogel lenses - A comparison with biweekly replacement. J Am Optom Assoc 1994;65:164-168.
18. Holden BA, Sweeney DF, Seger RG: Epithelial erosions caused by thin high water content lenses. Clin Exp Optom 1986;69:103-107.
19. Little SA, Bruce AS: Role of the post-lens tear film in the mechanism of inferior arcuate staining with ultrathin hydrogel lenses. CLAO J 1995;21:175-181.