Addressing common myths and misconceptions in soft contact lens practice

References

• Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 2011; 104: 510–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, et al. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 107–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron N, Henriquez A, Merkx J, et al. Why wear contact lenses? Myth versus reality. Optician 1992; 204: 23–24.
   Google Scholar
• Efron N, Henriquez A, Merkx J, et al. Why fit contact lenses? Myth versus reality. Optician 1992; 204: 12–14.
   Google Scholar
• Bayshore CA. Rigid lenses: an overview. J Am Optom Assoc 1979; 50: 317–318.
   Google Scholar
• Yamane SJ. Are hard lenses superior to soft? The advantages of soft lenses. Cornea 1990; 9: S12–14; discussion S15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumbleton K, Keir N, Moezzi A, et al. Objective and subjective responses in patients refitted to daily-wear silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 758–768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillehay SM. Does the level of available oxygen impact comfort in contact lens wear?: a review of the literature. Eye Contact Lens 2007; 33: 148–155.
   Google Scholar
• Sweeney DF. Clinical signs of hypoxia with high-Dk soft lens extended wear: is the cornea convinced?. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29: S22-25; discussion S26-29, S192-194.
   Google Scholar
• Fonn D, Sweeney D, Holden BA, et al. Corneal oxygen deficiency. Eye Contact Lens 2005; 31: 23–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stapleton F, Stretton S, Papas E, et al. Silicone hydrogel contact lenses and the ocular surface. Ocul Surf 2006; 4: 24–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweeney DF. Have silicone hydrogel lenses eliminated hypoxia?. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 53–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papas EB. The significance of oxygen during contact lens wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37: 394–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumbleton KA, Woods CA, Jones LW, et al. Comfort and adaptation to silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear. Eye Contact Lens 2008; 34: 215–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers R, Long B, Dillehay S, et al. Improving contact-lens related dryness symptoms with silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2008; 85: 778–784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer J, Mitchell GL, Chalmers RL, et al. The stability of dryness symptoms after refitting with silicone hydrogel contact lenses over 3 years. Eye Contact Lens 2007; 33: 247–252.
   Google Scholar
• Riley C, Young G, Chalmers R. Prevalence of ocular surface symptoms, signs, and uncomfortable hours of wear in contact lens wearers: the effect of refitting with daily-wear silicone hydrogel lenses (senofilcon a). Eye Contact Lens 2006; 32: 281–286.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Young G, Riley CM, Chalmers RL, et al. Hydrogel lens comfort in challenging environments and the effect of refitting with silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 302–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ousler GW 3rd, Anderson RT, Osborn KE. The effect of senofilcon A contact lenses compared to habitual contact lenses on ocular discomfort during exposure to a controlled adverse environment. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24: 335–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers R. Overview of factors that affect comfort with modern soft contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37: 65–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillon M. Are silicone hydrogel contact lenses more comfortable than hydrogel contact lenses?. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 86–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L, Brennan NA, Gonzalez-Meijome J, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the contact lens materials, design, and care subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: TFOS37–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods CA, Bentley SA, Fonn D. Temporal changes in contact lens comfort over a day of wear. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016; 36: 643–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung SW, Cho P, Chan B, et al. A comparative study of biweekly disposable contact lenses: silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel. Clin Exp Optom 2007; 90: 124–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonn D, Dumbleton K. Dryness and discomfort with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29: S101-104; discussion S115-108, S192-104.
   Google Scholar
• Diec J, Tilia D, Thomas V. Comparison of silicone hydrogel and hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: S167–S172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazon de La Jara P, Diec J, Naduvilath T, et al. Measuring daily disposable contact lenses against nonwearer benchmarks. Optom Vis Sci 2018; 95: 1088–1095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton F, Tan J. Impact of contact lens material, design, and fitting on discomfort. Eye Contact Lens 2017; 43: 32–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron N, Brennan NA, Chalmers RL, et al. Thirty years of ‘quiet eye’ with etafilcon A contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2020; 43: 285–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan P, Woods C, Tranoudis IG, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2020. Cont Lens Spectr 2021; 36: 32–38.
   Google Scholar
• Jones L. Modern contact lens materials: a clinical performance update. Cont Lens Spectr 2002; 17: 24–35.
   Google Scholar
• Musgrave CSA, Fang F. Contact lens materials: a materials science perspective. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(2): 261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tighe BJ. A decade of silicone hydrogel development: surface properties, mechanical properties, and ocular compatibility. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 4–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron N. The oxygen performance of contemporary hydrogel contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 1998; 21: 3–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moezzi AM, Varikooty J, Schulze M, et al. Corneal swelling with cosmetic etafilcon a lenses versus no lens wear. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 619–628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moezzi AM, Varikooty J, Luensmann D, et al. The short-term physiological impact of switching reusable silicone hydrogel wearers into a hydrogel daily disposable multifocal. Clin Ophthalmol 2019; 13: 1193–1202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczotka-Flynn LB, Debanne S, Benetz BA, et al. Daily wear contact lenses manufactured in etafilcon a are noninferior to two silicone hydrogel lens types with respect to hypoxic stress. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: 190–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods J, Jones D, Jones L, et al. Ocular health of children wearing daily disposable contact lenses over a 6-year period. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 44: 101391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim E, Saha M, Ehrmann K. Mechanical properties of contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: S148–S156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horst CR, Brodland B, Jones LW, et al. Measuring the modulus of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1468–1476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L, Subbaraman LN, Rogers R, et al. Surface treatment, wetting and modulus of silicone hydrogels. Optician 2006; 232: 28–34.
   Google Scholar
• Ozkan J, Willcox M. The effect of lens modulus on insertion comfort with silicone hydrogel lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52(14): e–abstract 6515. ARVO abstract.
   Google Scholar
• Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, McNally J, et al. Effect of lens base curve on subjective comfort and assessment of fit with silicone hydrogel continuous wear contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 633–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder C. Modulus and its effect on contact lens fit. Cont Lens Spectr 2007; 22: 36–40.
   Google Scholar
• Jones L, Dumbleton K. Soft lens extended wear and complications. In: Hom MM, Bruce A, editors. Manual of contact lens prescribing and fitting. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2006. p. 393–441.
   Google Scholar
• Dumbleton K. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29: S186-189; discussion S190-181, S192-184.
   Google Scholar
• Lin MC, Yeh TN. Mechanical complications induced by silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 115–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton F, Keay L, Edwards K, et al. The epidemiology of microbial keratitis with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 79–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele KR, Szczotka-Flynn L. Epidemiology of contact lens-induced infiltrates: an updated review. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 473–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton F, Bakkar M, Carnt N, et al. CLEAR - contact lens complications. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 44: 330–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radford CF, Minassian D, Dart JK, et al. Risk factors for nonulcerative contact lens complications in an ophthalmic accident and emergency department: a case-control study. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 385–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczotka-Flynn L, Diaz M. Risk of corneal inflammatory events with silicone hydrogel and low dk hydrogel extended contact lens wear: a meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 247–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, Keay L, McNally J, et al. Multicenter case-control study of the role of lens materials and care products on the development of corneal infiltrates. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 316–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, Wagner H, Mitchell GL, et al. Age and other risk factors for corneal infiltrative and inflammatory events in young soft contact lens wearers from the Contact Lens Assessment in Youth (CLAY) study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 6690–6696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richdale K, Lam DY, Wagner H, et al. Case-control pilot study of soft contact lens wearers with corneal infiltrative events and healthy controls. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016; 57: 47–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L, MacDougall N, Sorbara LG. Asymptomatic corneal staining associated with the use of balafilcon silicone-hydrogel contact lenses disinfected with a polyaminopropyl biguanide-preserved care regimen. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 753–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garofalo RJ, Dassanayake N, Carey C, et al. Corneal staining and subjective symptoms with multipurpose solutions as a function of time. Eye Contact Lens 2005; 31: 166–174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Diec J, Evans VE, Tilia D, et al. Comparison of ocular comfort, vision, and SICS during silicone hydrogel contact lens daily wear. Eye Contact Lens 2012; 38: 2–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrasko G, Ryen K. Corneal staining and comfort observed with traditional and silicone hydrogel lenses and multipurpose solution combinations. Optometry 2008; 79: 444–454.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morris CA, Maltseva IA, Rogers VA, et al. Consequences of preservative uptake and release by contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: S247–S255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L, Powell CH. Uptake and release phenomena in contact lens care by silicone hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 29–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green JA, Phillips KS, Hitchins VM, et al. Material properties that predict preservative uptake for silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2012; 38: 350–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers RW, Tighe BJ. Studies of the ocular compatibility of hydrogels. A review of the clinical manifestations of spoilation. Biomaterials 1987; 8: 83–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tripathi RC, Tripathi BJ, Silverman RA, et al. Contact lens deposits and spoilage: identification and management. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1991; 31: 91–120.
   Google Scholar
• Tripathi RC, Tripathi BJ, Ruben M. The pathology of soft contact lens spoilage. Ophthalmology 1980; 87: 365–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan NA, Coles M-LC. Deposits and symptomatology with soft contact lens wear. Int Cont Lens Clin 2000; 27: 75–100.
   Google Scholar
• Myers RI, Larsen DW, Tsao M, et al. Quantity of protein deposited on hydrogel contact lenses and its relation to visible protein deposits. Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68: 776–782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minno GE, Eckel L, Groemminger S, et al. Quantitative analysis of protein deposits on hydrophilic soft contact lenses: i. Comparison to visual methods of analysis. II. Deposit variation among FDA lens material groups. Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68: 865–872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, Hickson-Curran SB, Keay L, et al. Rates of adverse events with hydrogel and silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses in a large postmarket surveillance registry: the TEMPO Registry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 654–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porazinski AD, Donshik PC. Giant papillary conjunctivitis in frequent replacement contact lens wearers: a retrospective study. CLAO J 1999; 25: 142–147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Solomon OD, Freeman MI, Boshnick EL, et al. A 3-year prospective study of the clinical performance of daily disposable contact lenses compared with frequent replacement and conventional daily wear contact lenses. CLAO J 1996; 22: 250–257.
   Google Scholar
• Omali NB, Subbaraman LN, Coles-Brennan C, et al. Biological and clinical implications of lysozyme deposition on soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: 750–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols JJ. Deposition on silicone hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 19–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luensmann D, Jones L. Protein deposition on contact lenses: the past, the present, and the future. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2012; 35: 53–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorentz H, Jones L. Lipid deposition on hydrogel contact lenses: how history can help us today. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 286–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann A, Tighe B. Contact lens interactions with the tear film. Exp Eye Res 2013; 117: 88–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minarik L, Rapp J. Protein deposits on individual hydrophilic contact lenses: effects of water and ionicity. CLAO J 1989; 15: 185–188.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sack RA, Jones B, Antignani A, et al. Specificity and biological activity of the protein deposited on the hydrogel surface. Relationship of polymer structure to biofilm formation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987; 28: 842–849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin ST, Mandell RB, Leahy CD, et al. Protein accumulation on disposable extended wear lenses. CLAO J 1991; 17: 44–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall B, Jones L, Forrest JA. Measuring the kinetics and activity of adsorbed proteins: in vitro lysozyme deposited onto hydrogel contact lenses over short time periods. J Biomed Mater Res A 2013; 101: 755–764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subbaraman LN, Glasier MA, Senchyna M, et al. Kinetics of in vitro lysozyme deposition on silicone hydrogel, PMMA, and FDA groups I, II, and IV contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res 2006; 31: 787–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suwala M, Glasier MA, Subbaraman LN, et al. Quantity and conformation of lysozyme deposited on conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials using an in vitro model. Eye Contact Lens 2007; 33: 138–143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Subbaraman LN, Glasier MA, Varikooty J, et al. Protein deposition and clinical symptoms in daily wear of etafilcon lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1450–1459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCanna DJ, Oh S, Seo J, et al. The effect of denatured lysozyme on human corneal epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2018; 59: 2006–2014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subbaraman LN, Jones L. Kinetics of lysozyme activity recovered from conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. J Biomater Sci Poly Ed 2010; 21: 343–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng A, Heynen M, Luensmann D, et al. Impact of tear film components on the conformational state of lysozyme deposited on contact lenses. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013; 101: 1172–1181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omali NB, Subbaraman LN, Heynen M, et al. Surface versus bulk activity of lysozyme deposited on hydrogel contact lens materials in vitro. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2018; 41: 329–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucker AD, Thangavelu M, Nichols JJ. In vitro lipid deposition on hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 6334–6340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorentz H, Heynen M, Khan W, et al. The impact of intermittent air exposure on lipid deposition. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1574–1581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorentz H, Heynen M, Trieu D, et al. The impact of tear film components on in vitro lipid uptake. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 856–867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther H, Subbaraman L, Jones LW. In vitro cholesterol deposition on daily disposable contact lens materials. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 36–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babaei Omali N, Lada M, Lakkis C, et al. Lipid deposition on contact lenses when using contemporary care solutions. Optom Vis Sci 2017; 94: 919–927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luensmann D, Omali NB, Suko A, et al. Kinetic deposition of polar and non-polar lipids on silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Curr Eye Res 2020; 45: 1477–1483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiao H, Luensmann D, Heynen M, et al. In vitro evaluation of the location of cholesteryl ester deposits on monthly replacement silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. Clin Ophthalmol 2020; 14: 2821–2828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omali NB, Subbaraman LN, Heynen M, et al. Lipid deposition on contact lenses in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 44: 56–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on contact lens discomfort: report of the subcommittee on epidemiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: TFOS20–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumbleton K, Woods CA, Jones LW, et al. The impact of contemporary contact lenses on contact lens discontinuation. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 93–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulley A, Young G, Hunt C. Factors in the success of new contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2017; 40: 15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulley A, Young G, Hunt C, et al. Retention rates in new contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: S273–S282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kislan T. Contact lens dropout: blame the surface, not the lens. Cont Lens Spectr 2021; 36: 42–44.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols JJ, Willcox MD, Bron AJ, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on contact lens discomfort: executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: TFOS7–TFOS13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazon de La Jara P, Papas E, Diec J, et al. Effect of lens care systems on the clinical performance of a contact lens. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 344–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols JJ, Chalmers RL, Dumbleton K, et al. The case for using hydrogen peroxide contact lens care solutions: a review. Eye Contact Lens 2019; 45: 69–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young G, Efron N. Characteristics of the pre-lens tear film during hydrogel contact lens wear. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1991; 11: 53–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillon M, Maissa C. Contact lens wear affects tear film evaporation. Eye Contact Lens 2008; 34: 326–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson MJ, Hseuh S, Willcox MD. Preliminary tear film measurements of tolerant and non-tolerant contact lens wearers. Clin Exp Optom 1999; 82: 177–181.
   Google Scholar
• Rohit A, Willcox M, Stapleton F. Tear lipid layer and contact lens comfort: a review. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 247–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina K, Graham AD, Yeh T, et al. Not all dry eye in contact lens wear is contact lens-induced. Eye Contact Lens 2020; 46: 214–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemp MA, Crews LA, Bron AJ, et al. Distribution of aqueous-deficient and evaporative dry eye in a clinic-based patient cohort: a retrospective study. Cornea 2012; 31: 472–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bron AJ, de Paiva CS, Chauhan SK, et al. TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report. Ocul Surf 2017; 15: 438–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downie LE, Craig JP. Tear film evaluation and management in soft contact lens wear: a systematic approach. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 438–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddireddy JS, Vijay AK, Tan J, et al. The eyelids and tear film in contact lens discomfort. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2018; 41: 144–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tichenor AA, Cox SM, Ziemanski JF, et al. Effect of the Bruder moist heat eye compress on contact lens discomfort in contact lens wearers: an open-label randomized clinical trial. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019; 42: 625–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeon J, Park S. Comparison of the efficacy of eyelid warming masks and artificial tears for dry eye symptoms in contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 44: 30–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddireddy JS, Tan J, Vijay AK, et al. The effect of microblepharon exfoliation on clinical correlates of contact lens discomfort. Optom Vis Sci 2019; 96: 187–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddireddy JS, Vijay AK, Tan J, et al. Effect of eyelid treatments on bacterial load and lipase activity in relation to contact lens discomfort. Eye Contact Lens 2020; 46: 245–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackie CA, Coleman CA, Nichols KK, et al. A single vectored thermal pulsation treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction increases mean comfortable contact lens wearing time by approximately 4 hours per day. Clin Ophthalmol 2018; 12: 169–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucker AD, McGwin G Jr., Franklin QX, et al. Evaluation of systane complete for the treatment of contact lens discomfort. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2020; 43: 441–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korb DR, Greiner JV, Herman JP, et al. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy and dry-eye symptoms in contact lens wearers. CLAO J 2002; 28: 211–216.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coles MC, Brennan NA. Coefficient of friction and soft contact lens comfort. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: e–abstract # 125603.
   Google Scholar
• Yeniad B, Beginoglu M, Bilgin LK. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy in contact lens users and patients with dry eye. Eye Contact Lens 2010; 36: 140–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze MM, Srinivasan S, Hickson-Curran SB, et al. Lid wiper epitheliopathy in soft contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 943–954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie SE, Jones L, Blackie CA, et al. A comparative study between an oil-in-water emulsion and nonlipid eye drops used for rewetting contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2015; 41: 373–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao SB, Simpson TL. Influence of vision on ocular comfort ratings. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 793–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maldonado-Codina C, Navascues Cornago M, Read ML, et al. The association of comfort and vision in soft toric contact lens wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 44: 101387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: 1036–1042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain P, Peixoto-de-matos SC, Logan NS, et al. A 3-year randomized clinical trial of misight lenses for myopia control. Optom Vis Sci 2019; 96: 556–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walline JJ, Walker MK, Mutti DO, et al. Effect of high add power, medium add power, or single-vision contact lenses on myopia progression in children: the BLINK randomized clinical trial. Jama 2020; 324: 571–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walline JJ, Lindsley K, Vedula SS, et al. Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; CD004916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho P, Cheung SW, Edwards M. The longitudinal orthokeratology research in children (LORIC) in Hong Kong: a pilot study on refractive changes and myopic control. Curr Eye Res 2005; 30: 71–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of myopia in Orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 7077–7085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charm J, Cho P. High myopia-partial reduction ortho-k: a 2-year randomized study. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 530–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford KL, Richdale K, Kang P, et al. IMI - clinical management guidelines report. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2019; 60: M184–M203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L, Drobe B, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, et al. IMI - industry guidelines and ethical considerations for myopia control report. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2019; 60: M161–M183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rah MJ, Walline JJ, Jones-Jordan LA, et al. Vision specific quality of life of pediatric contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: 560–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott L, et al. Randomized trial of the effect of contact lens wear on self-perception in children. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 222–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plowright AJ, Maldonado-Codina C, Howarth GF, et al. Daily disposable contact lenses versus spectacles in teenagers. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: 44–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santodomingo-Rubido J, Villa-Collar C, Gilmartin B, et al. Myopia control with orthokeratology contact lenses in Spain: a comparison of vision-related quality-of-life measures between orthokeratology contact lenses and single-vision spectacles. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39: 153–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walline JJ, Jones LA, Rah MJ, et al. Contact lenses in pediatrics (CLIP) study: chair time and ocular health. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 896–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paquette L, Jones DA, Sears M, et al. Contact lens fitting and training in a child and youth population. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015; 38: 419–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullimore MA. The safety of soft contact lenses in children. Optom Vis Sci 2017; 94: 638–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankaridurg P, Chen X, Naduvilath T, et al. Adverse events during 2 years of daily wear of silicone hydrogels in children. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 961–969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott L, et al. A randomized trial of the effect of soft contact lenses on myopia progression in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 4702–4706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, McNally JJ, Schein OD, et al. Risk factors for corneal infiltrates with continuous wear of contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 573–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczotka-Flynn L, Jiang Y, Raghupathy S, et al. Corneal inflammatory events with daily silicone hydrogel lens wear. Optom Vis Sci 2014; 91: 3–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam DY, Kinoshita BT, Jansen ME, et al. Contact lens assessment in youth: methods and baseline findings. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 708–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, McNally JJ, Chamberlain P, et al. Adverse event rates in the retrospective cohort study of safety of paediatric soft contact lens wear: the ReCSS study. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2021; 41: 84–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron N, Nichols JJ, Woods CA, et al. Trends in US Contact Lens Prescribing 2002 to 2014. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: 758–767.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sindt CW, Riley CM. Practitioner attitudes on children and contact lenses. Optometry 2011; 82: 44–45.
   Google Scholar
• Efron N, Morgan PB, Woods CA, et al. Survey of contact lens prescribing to infants, children, and teenagers. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 461–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Calossi A, Cho P, et al. Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice - 2019 Update. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2020; 43: 9–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Calossi A, Cho P, et al. Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016; 39: 106–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron N, Woods CA, et al. An international survey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2011; 94: 87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivardeen A, Laughton D, Wolffsohn JS. Investigating the utility of clinical assessments to predict success with presbyopic contact lens correction. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016; 39: 322–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods J, Woods CA, Fonn D. Early symptomatic presbyopes–what correction modality works best?. Eye Contact Lens 2009; 35: 221–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thite N, Desiato A, Shinde L, et al. Opportunities and threats to contact lens practice: a global survey perspective. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 101496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron N. Influence of practice setting on contact lens prescribing in the United Kingdom. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015; 38: 70–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remon L, Perez-Merino P, Macedo-de-araujo RJ, et al. Bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia and myopia control. J Ophthalmol 2020; 2020: 8067657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res 2019; 68: 124–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sha J, Tilia D, Kho D, et al. Visual performance of daily-disposable multifocal soft contact lenses: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci 2018; 95: 1096–1104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez-Prados R, Pinero DP, Perez-Cambrodi RJ, et al. Soft multifocal simultaneous image contact lenses: a review. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 107–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollbaum PS, Bradley A. Correction of presbyopia: old problems with old (and new) solutions. Clin Exp Optom 2020; 103: 21–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richdale K, Cox I, Kollbaum P, et al. CLEAR - contact lens optics. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 44: 220–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones D, Woods C, Jones L, et al. A sixteen year survey of Canadian contact lens prescribing. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016; 39: 402–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminarayanan V. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 611–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 266–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans BJ. Monovision: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007; 27: 417–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diec J, Tilia D, Naduvilath T, et al. Predicting short-term performance of multifocal contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2017; 43: 340–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivardeen A, Laughton D, Wolffsohn JS. Randomized crossover trial of silicone hydrogel presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 141–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods J, Varikooty J, Lumb E. Validation of a multifocal contact lens online fitting app. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2019; 42: e38.
   Google Scholar
• Fedtke C, Ehrmann K, Thomas V, et al. Association between multifocal soft contact lens decentration and visual performance. Clin Optom (Auckl) 2016; 8: 57–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeri F, Di Vizio A, Guida M, et al. Accuracy, inter-observer and intra-observer reliability in topography assessment of multifocal contact lens centration. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2020; 43: 448–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papas EB, Decenzo-Verbeten T, Fonn D, et al. Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance. Eye Contact Lens 2009; 35: 144–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods J, Woods C, Fonn D. Visual performance of a multifocal contact lens versus monovision in established presbyopes. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: 175–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young G. Diligent disinfection in 49 steps. Cont Lens Spectr 2012; 27: 53–54.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron N, Toshida H, et al. An international analysis of contact lens compliance. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2011; 34: 223–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumbleton KA, Woods CA, Jones LW, et al. The relationship between compliance with lens replacement and contact lens-related problems in silicone hydrogel wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2011; 34: 216–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cope JR, Collier SA, Rao MM, et al. Contact lens wearer demographics and risk behaviors for contact lens-related eye infections–United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015; 64: 865–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L, Dumbleton K, Fonn D, et al. Comfort and compliance with frequent replacement soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 259.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, Keay L, Long B, et al. Risk factors for contact lens complications in US clinical practices. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: 725–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dart JK, Radford CF, Minassian D, et al. Risk factors for microbial keratitis with contemporary contact lenses: a case-control study. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1647-1654, 1654 e1641-1643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton F, Keay L, Edwards K, et al. The incidence of contact lens-related microbial keratitis in Australia. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1655–1662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schein OD, McNally JJ, Katz J, et al. The incidence of microbial keratitis among wearers of a 30-day silicone hydrogel extended-wear contact lens. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 2172–2179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron N, Hill EA, et al. Incidence of keratitis of varying severity among contact lens wearers. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89: 430–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMonnies CW. Improving contact lens compliance by explaining the benefits of compliant procedures. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2011; 34: 249–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu YT, Willcox M, Zhu H, et al. Contact lens hygiene compliance and lens case contamination: a review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015; 38: 307–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonn D, Jones L. Hand hygiene is linked to microbial keratitis and corneal inflammatory events. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019; 42: 132–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arshad M, Carnt N, Tan J, et al. Water exposure and the risk of contact lens-related disease. Cornea 2019; 38: 791–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yee A, Walsh K, Schulze M, et al. The impact of patient behaviour and care system compliance on reusable soft contact lens complications. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021; 101432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Carnt N, Willcox M, et al. Contact lens and lens storage case cleaning instructions: whose advice should we follow?. Eye Contact Lens 2010; 36: 68–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schein OD, Glynn RJ, Poggio EC, et al. The relative risk of ulcerative keratitis among users of daily-wear and extended-wear soft contact lenses. A case-control study. Microbial keratitis study group. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 773–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton F, Naduvilath T, Keay L, et al. Risk factors and causative organisms in microbial keratitis in daily disposable contact lens wear. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0181343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bui TH, Cavanagh HD, Robertson DM. Patient compliance during contact lens wear: perceptions, awareness, and behavior. Eye Contact Lens 2010; 36: 334–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung KK, Forister JF, Forister EF, et al. Compliance with soft contact lens replacement schedules and associated contact lens-related ocular complications: the UCLA Contact Lens Study. Optometry 2010; 81: 598–607.
   Google Scholar
• Saw SM, Ooi PL, Tan DT, et al. Risk factors for contact lens-related fusarium keratitis: a case-control study in Singapore. Arch Ophtalmol 2007; 125: 611–617.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cope JR, Collier SA, Srinivasan K, et al. Contact lens-related corneal infections - United States, 2005-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016; 65: 817–820.
   Google Scholar
• Dumbleton K, Woods C, Jones L, et al. Comfort and vision with silicone hydrogel lenses: effect of compliance. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: 421–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickson-Curran S, Chalmers RL, Riley C. Patient attitudes and behavior regarding hygiene and replacement of soft contact lenses and storage cases. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2011; 34: 207–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan P. Contact lens compliance and reducing the risk of keratits. Optician 2007; 234: 20–25.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Carnt N, Stapleton F. Contact lens user profile, attitudes and level of compliance to lens care. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2010; 33: 183–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yung AM, Boost MV, Cho P, et al. The effect of a compliance enhancement strategy (self-review) on the level of lens care compliance and contamination of contact lenses and lens care accessories. Clin Exp Optom 2007; 90: 190–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cope JR, Collier SA, Schein OD, et al. Acanthamoeba keratitis among rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers in the United States, 2005 through 2011. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: 1435–1441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman AB, Richdale K, Mitchell GL, et al. Water exposure is a common risk behavior among soft and gas-permeable contact lens wearers. Cornea 2017; 36: 995–1001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joslin CE, Tu EY, Shoff ME, et al. The association of contact lens solution use and Acanthamoeba keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144: 169–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang DC, Grant GB, O’Donnell K, et al. Multistate outbreak of Fusarium keratitis associated with use of a contact lens solution. Jama 2006; 296: 953–963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown AC, Ross J, Jones DB, et al. Risk factors for acanthamoeba keratitis-a multistate case-control study, 2008-2011. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: S173–S178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall BJ, Jones L. Contact lens cases: the missing link in contact lens safety?. Eye Contact Lens 2010; 36: 101–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton F. Contact lens-related corneal infection in Australia. Clin Exp Optom 2020; 103: 408–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young G, Sulley A, Hunt C. Prevalence of astigmatism in relation to soft contact lens fitting. Eye Contact Lens 2011; 37: 20–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Bhogal G, Shah S. Effect of uncorrected astigmatism on vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011; 37: 454–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wills J, Gillett R, Eastwell E, et al. Effect of simulated astigmatic refractive error on reading performance in the young. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 271–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Qahtani H, Al-Debasi H. The effects of experimentally induced graded monocular and binocular astigmatism on near stereoacuity. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2018; 32: 275–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Hue JE, Huang RR, et al. The effects of induced oblique astigmatism on symptoms and reading performance while viewing a computer screen. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012; 32: 142–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young G, Veys J, Pritchard N, et al. A multi-centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 516–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young G. Why one million contact lens wearers dropped out. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2004; 27: 83–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Evans J, Hau S. The therapeutic and optical application of a rigid gas permeable semi-limbal diameter contact lens. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2009; 32: 165–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan J, Papas E, Carnt N, et al. Performance standards for toric soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 422–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlinson A, Ridder WH 3rd, Watanabe R. Blink-induced variations in visual performance with toric soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1994; 71: 545–549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young G, McIlraith R, Hunt C. Clinical evaluation of factors affecting soft toric lens orientation. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: E1259–1266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIlraith R, Young G, Hunt C. Toric lens orientation and visual acuity in non-standard conditions. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2010; 33: 23-26; quiz 43-24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein P, Gundel R, Rosen J. Masking corneal toricity with hydrogels: does it work?. Int Cont Lens Clin 1991; 18: 67–70.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder C, Talley DK. Masking of astigmatism with selected spherical soft contact lenses. J Am Optom Assoc 1989; 60: 728–731.
   Google Scholar
• Edmondson L, Edmondson W, Price R. Masking astigmatism: CIBA focus night and day vs focus monthly. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 184.
   Google Scholar
• Cho P, Woo GC. Vision of low astigmats through thick and thin lathe-cut soft contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2001; 24: 153–160.
   Google Scholar
• Kollbaum PS, Bradley A. Aspheric contact lenses: fact and fiction. Cont Lens Spectr 2005; 20: 34–38.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron SE, Efron N, et al. Inefficacy of aspheric soft contact lenses for the correction of low levels of astigmatism. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 823–828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho P, Cheung SW, Charm J. Visual outcome of soflens daily disposable and soflens daily disposable for astigmatism in subjects with low astigmatism. Clin Exp Optom 2012; 95: 43–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruse A, Lofstrom T. How much visual benefit does an astigmat achieve being corrected with a toric correction?. Int Cont Lens Clin 1996; 23: 59–65.
   Google Scholar
• Berntsen DA, Cox SM, Bickle KM, et al. A randomized trial to evaluate the effect of toric versus spherical contact lenses on vision and eyestrain. Eye Contact Lens 2019; 45: 28–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox SM, Berntsen DA, Bickle KM, et al. Efficacy of toric contact lenses in fitting and patient-reported outcomes in contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: S296–S299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulley A, Young G, Lorenz KO, et al. Clinical evaluation of fitting toric soft contact lenses to current non-users. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2013; 33: 94–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Momeni-Moghaddam H, Naroo SA, Askarizadeh F, et al. Comparison of fitting stability of the different soft toric contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37: 346–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zikos GA, Kang SS, Ciuffreda KJ, et al. Rotational stability of toric soft contact lenses during natural viewing conditions. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 1039–1045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain P, Morgan PB, Moody KJ, et al. Fluctuation in visual acuity during soft toric contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: E534–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luensmann D, Schaeffer JL, Rumney NJ, et al. Spectacle prescriptions review to determine prevalence of ametropia and coverage of frequent replacement soft toric contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2018; 41: 412–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Woods C, Tranoudis I, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2019. Cont Lens Spectr 2020; 35: 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Woods C, Tranoudis I, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2018. Cont Lens Spectr 2019; 34: 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Woods C, Tranoudis I, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2017. Cont Lens Spectr 2018; 33: 28–33.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Woods C, Tranoudis I, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2016. Cont Lens Spectr 2017; 32: 30–35.
   Google Scholar
• Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Yekta A, et al. Global and regional estimates of prevalence of refractive errors: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol 2018; 30: 3–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper M, Patel K, Russell N. Mixed-methods study of behaviours and attitudes to vision correction of spectacle and contact lens wearers. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2019; 42: e23.
   Google Scholar
• Jones L, Jones D, Langley C, et al. Reactive or proactive contact lens fitting — does it make a difference?. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1996; 19: 41–43.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan S, Efron N. The benefits of a proactive approach to contact lens fitting. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1996; 19: 97–101.
   Google Scholar
• Meyler J. STAR performers. Optician 1996; 212: 18–19.
   Google Scholar
• Atkins NP, Morgan SL, Morgan PB. Enhancing the approach to selecting eyewear (EASE): a multi-centre, practice-based study into the effect of applying contact lenses prior to spectacle dispensing. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2009; 32: 103–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayers M, Jansen Bishop M, Walerius D, et al. Improving your spectacle patients’ in-practice experience with contact lenses during frame selection. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019; 42: 406–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucker AD, Tichenor AA. A review of contact lens dropout. Clin Optom (Auckl) 2020; 12: 85–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols JJ, Jones L, Nelson JD, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on contact lens discomfort: introduction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: TFOS1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, Keay L, Hickson-Curran SB, et al. Cutoff score and responsiveness of the 8-item Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) in a Large daily disposable contact lens registry. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016; 39: 342–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucker AD, Dougherty BE, Jones-Jordan LA, et al. Psychometric analysis of the SPEED questionnaire and CLDEQ-8. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2018; 59: 3307–3313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koh S, Maeda N, Hamano T, et al. Effect of internal lubricating agents of disposable soft contact lenses on higher-order aberrations after blinking. Eye Contact Lens 2008; 34: 100–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koh S, Watanabe K, Nishida K. Objective evaluation of on-eye optical quality of daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lens with internal wetting agents. Clin Ophthalmol 2019; 13: 2159–2165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeri F, Naroo SA. Contact lens practice in the time of COVID-19. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2020; 43: 193–195.
   Google Scholar
• Nagra M, Vianya-Estopa M, Wolffsohn JS. Could telehealth help eye care practitioners adapt contact lens services during the COVID-19 pandemic?. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2020; 43: 204–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar