The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error

Kareem Allinjawi; Sharanjeet-Kaur Sharanjeet-Kaur; Saadah Mohamed Akhir; Haliza Abdul Mutalib

doi:10.12688/f1000research.10080.1

Home Browse The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Kareem Allinjawi¹, Sharanjeet-Kaur Sharanjeet-Kaur¹, Saadah Mohamed Akhir¹, Haliza Abdul Mutalib¹

PUBLISHED 30 Nov 2016

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Health Science, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, 50300, Malaysia

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Eye Health gateway.

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in the relative peripheral refractive error produced by soft single vision contact lenses in myopic schoolchildren.
Methods: 27 myopic schoolchildren aged between 13 to 15 years were included in this study. The measurements of central and peripheral refraction were made only on the right eye using a Grand-Seiko WR-5100K open-field autorefractometer without contact lens (WL), and with wearing single vision contact lens (SVCL). Refractive power was measured at center and horizontal eccentricity between 35° temporal to 35° nasal visual field (in 5° steps).
Results: SVCL showed an increase in peripheral hyperopic defocus at the nasal and temporal visual field compare with baseline, but this change was not statistically significant (p=0.129).
Conclusion: Wearing single vision soft contact lenses increases the relative peripheral hyperopic defocus in myopic schoolchildren.

Keywords

Myopia, hyperopic defocus, peripheral retina, soft contact lenses

Corresponding author: Sharanjeet-Kaur Sharanjeet-Kaur

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This study was supported by a grant (to SK) from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (DPK-2014-002).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2016 Allinjawi K et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Allinjawi K, Sharanjeet-Kaur SK, Akhir SM and Abdul Mutalib H. The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2016, 5:2803 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10080.1) First published: 30 Nov 2016, 5:2803 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10080.1) Latest published: 30 Nov 2016, 5:2803 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10080.1)

Introduction

Myopia is the most common type of refractive errors¹. It is considered a global health problem. Studies have shown that the myopic eye has a more prolated retinal shape compared to emmetropes^2–4. Soft contact lenses are commonly used to correct refractive errors especially in young adults. Using these lenses has become the most widely affordable correction of myopia with an extensive range of power and designs available, and such lenses are frequently worn by myopic children and adults. The contact lens usually affords a wider visual field, better life-style, and better appearance compare with spectacles. However, the incidence rate of microbial keratitis infection ranges from 2.2 to 4.1/10,000 per year for users of ‘daily-wear soft contact lenses, and this rate increases for users of extended-wear soft contact lenses from 13.3 to 20.9/10,000 per year⁵.

Although contact lenses are prescribed to correct the central vision, using them has no effects on the blurred image at the peripheral visual field, which eventually could influence the axial growth of the eyeball. The myopic eye typically demonstrates peripheral retinal hyperopic defocus which results in the eye growing axially backward in order to overcome the blur at the periphery. Studies conducted by Smith and colleagues in monkeys have shown that not only the fovea, but also the peripheral retina, is capable of regulating the emmetropization process^6–8. This shows that the peripheral retina is important in determining the ocular development and refractive error. Evidence suggests that hyperopic defocus is associated with progression of myopia in humans^9,10. Lin et al. (2010) reported that hyperopic defocus worsens with higher degree of myopia and eccentricity¹¹.

The impacts of single vision soft contact lenses (SVCL) on the peripheral refraction profile is still in debate. A recent study reported a reduction of relative peripheral hyperopic defocus with using Acuvue 2 SVCL by Johnson & Johnson¹². However, another study by Kang et al. (2012)¹³ recruited 34 young adults aged between 18 and 29 years found an increase in relative peripheral hyperopic defocus when full-correction Proclear SVCL by CooperVision were compared with the naked eye. Since there is evidence of the potential impact of peripheral refraction defocus on the progression of myopia, this study set out to determine the changes in relative peripheral refractive error (RPRE) produced by soft single vision contact lenses in myopic schoolchildren. To date, no study has evaluated the impact of SVCL wearing on the retinal profile in myopic children.

Methods

A total of 27 myopic Malaysian schoolchildren (24 females, 3 males) aged between 13 and 15 years were recruited for this cross-sectional study. The study was conducted at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Optometry Clinic and Vision Science Lab. Written informed consent was obtained before enrolment into the study. This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM 1.5.3.5/244/NN-144-2013) and followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki for using human subjects. The purpose and procedure of the study were explained to all participants and their parents.

Children eligible for this study were required to have 6/9 visual acuity or better with best correction, been myopic for more than 6 months, with a spherical component refractive error range between -3.00 to -6.00 D under non-cycloplegic refraction, astigmatism not more than -1.00 D, and having normal ocular and systemic health conditions. Children with manifested strabismus, amblyopia, any ocular conditions associated with myopia, a history of bifocal or progressive spectacles wear, orthokeratology contact lens wear, or currently wearing soft contact lens, were excluded from participation in this study.

A comprehensive ocular examination, which included fundus evaluation, anterior segment assessment, and A-scan ultrasound, was conducted by an experienced optometrist to select the candidates. An ultrasound A-scan (Tomey AL-2000) was used to measure axial length using a handheld probe. The final outcome was calculated as the mean of five measurements.

The spherical equivalent refractive error (M) for each subject was determined using non-cycloplegic objective and subjective refraction. Central and peripheral refraction were measured using an open-view autorefractometer Grand-Seiko WR-5100K (Grand Seiko Co., Ltd., Hiroshima, Japan). The examination room illumination was dimmed (mean of three measurements: 9.91 ± 1.73 lux, measured using Topcon Luxmeter) to obtain a sufficiently large pupil size enough to measure peripheral retina without using dilatation drops. The measurement was obtained initially without correction lenses (WL), then re-measured again using single vision soft contact lens (SVCL). The subjects were instructed to view fixation targets (green light laser) located at 4 meters arranged horizontally in the positions corresponding to eccentricities from 35º temporal to 35º nasal, in 5º steps. The straight ahead viewing technique was used in this study where the subjects rotated their eyes to view a series of fixation targets. Five refraction measurements were taken at each target fixation for the right eye only, while the left eye was occluded. For statistical analysis, the sphero-cylindrical refractive error measurements were converted into vector components of refraction M, J₀, J₄₅ using the equations recommended by Thibos et al. (1997)¹⁴ M, J₀ and J₄₅ according to Fourier analysis,

M = sph + (cyl/2),
J₀ = (-cyl/2) cos (2 α),
J₄₅ = (-cyl/2) sin (2 α),

where sph, cyl, and (α) represent sphere, cylinder, and axis, respectively. The relative peripheral refractive error (RPRE) was calculated as the difference between eccentric peripheral refraction and central refraction (the eccentricity point minus the centre value).

Contact lens design and materials

All subjects were fitted with single vision contact lenses to their right eyes. Lens powers fully corrected the central refractive error. The lens used in this study was ‘2 week Pure’ by SEED Co. Ltd, Japan. It is a spherical biweekly disposable soft contact lens made of Zwitterionic material SIB (FDA Group IV), 58% water content, with a diameter of 14.2 mm and a base curve of 8.6 mm. The SIB is SEED's original material with superior biocompatibility, similar in structure to protein which is a basic constituent of a human body by containing both positive and negative ions.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis software (IMB SPSS version 20, SPSS Inc, IL, USA) for Windows was used to evaluate the data. Only data from the right eye were analysed. Normality of data distribution was tested used Shapiro- Wilk test. A Paired t-test was used to compare the baseline (without correction) and single vision contact lens at the different eccentricities. The differences were considered statistically significant when the p value was lower than 0.05.

Results

A total of 27 myopic schoolchildren with a mean age of 14.18 ± 0.88 years (range: 13 years to 15 years) participated in this study with mean axial length of the eye was 24.72 ± 0.92 mm (range: 23.5 1mm to 26.39 mm). Table 1 illustrates the mean spherical equivalent value and the peripheral refraction along the horizontal visual field. The mean central refractive error for the baseline and single vision contact lens was -4.39±0.95 D and -0.22±0.22 D, respectively. The minus value decreased with the farther off-axis which indicated hyperopic shift at the peripheral retina.

Table 1. Mean spherical equivalent (M ± SD), horizontal astigmatism component (J₀ ± SD) and oblique astigmatism component (J₄₅ ± SD) for 27 eyes at different eccentricities without lens, and with using SVCL.

Values are expressed in dioptres (D). N is nasal visual field; T is temporal visual field; C is centre.

	M		J₀		J₄₅
	WL	SVCL	WL	SVCL	WL	SVCL
N35	-3.32 ±1.59	1.14 ±1.15	0.11 ±0.84	0.2 ±0.79	0.18±0.91	-0.07±0.81
N30	-3.6 ±1.49	0.75 ±0.91	0.02 ±0.93	-0.06 ±0.63	-0.15±0.58	0.09±0.6
N25	-4.09 ± 1.36	0.36 ± 0.78	0.06 ±0.7	-0.03 ±0.55	-0.18±0.58	-0.11±0.5
N20	-4.31 ±1.09	0.01 ±0.62	0 ±0.36	-0.03 ±0.33	0.07±0.51	-0.04±0.32
N15	-4.41 ±1.11	-0.18 ±0.43	0.01 ±0.28	-0.05 ±0.25	0.05±0.37	-0.04±0.28
N10	-4.43 ±0.93	-0.13 ±0.35	-0.03 ±0.23	-0.05 ±0.22	-0.04±0.25	-0.04±0.24
N5	-4.37 ±0.89	-0.27 ±0.34	0 ±0.27	0.11 ±0.26	-0.01±0.23	0.02±0.24
C	-4.39 ±0.95	-0.22 ±0.22	-0.04 ±0.25	0.02 ±0.22	-0.03±0.23	-0.02±0.29
T5	-4.2 ± 0.98	-0.34 ±0.47	0.02 ±0.26	-0.04 ±0.22	-0.06±0.28	-0.01±0.23
T10	-4.52 ±1.04	-0.33 ±0.49	0.07 ±0.31	-0.09 ±0.23	0.02±0.32	-0.03±0.21
T15	-4.33 ±1.34	-0.25 ±0.63	0.03 ±0.34	-0.02 ±0.27	-0.07±0.27	-0.06±0.34
T20	-4.19 ±1.2	0.2 ±0.91	-0.07 ±0.38	0 ±0.34	-0.04±0.36	-0.07±0.38
T25	-3.86 ±1.31	0.46 ±0.88	-0.05 ±0.34	-0.02 ±0.27	-0.01±0.36	-0.01±0.31
T30	-3.63 ±1.35	0.68 ±1.03	-0.07 ±0.54	0.05 ±0.33	0.11±0.41	0.04±0.46
T35	-3.34 ±1.32	0.97 ±1.01	0.13 ±0.5	-0.05 ±0.4	-0.01±0.59	-0.09±0.37

Compared with the baseline (without contact lens), the ‘2 week Pure’ single vision contact lens from SEED^® caused an increase in relative peripheral hyperopia from 10º and beyond in the nasal visual field (VF), and from 20º and beyond in the temporal VF. Table 2 illustrates the mean and standard deviation for the relative peripheral refractive error (RPRE) for the baseline and when using SVCL, as well as the significant P value using paired t-test for the centre refraction and off-axis measured. The baseline showed a statistically significant difference between centre refractive error and 30º and 35º in nasal VF (p=0.001), and from 25º and beyond in temporal VF (p<0.05). However, the statistical significant difference started from 20º and beyond in nasal and temporal VF when using the single vision contact lens (p<0.05). Moreover, J₀ and J₄₅ showed no statistically significant difference between the centre refraction and all eccentricity points for baseline and with using SVCL, except J₄₅ at 5º nasal VF with using SVCL (p=0.026).

Table 2. Relative peripheral refractive error as mean spherical equivalent values (M±SD), horizontal astigmatism component (J₀ ± SD) and oblique astigmatism component (J₄₅ ± SD) for 27 eyes at baseline and with using SVCL.

Legend: Values are expressed in diopters (D). N is nasal visual field; T is temporal visual field; C is center. Bold indicates statistically significant power difference from central point (95% confidence).

	M		J₀		J₄₅
	WL ± SD Sig. (p)	SVCL ± SD Sig. (p)	WL ± SD Sig. (p)	SVCL ± SD Sig. (p)	WL ± SD Sig. (p)	SVCL ± SD Sig. (p)
N35	1.08±1.24 < 0.001	1.36 ± 1.12 < 0.001	-0.33 ± 0.84 0.090	0.02 ± 0.56 0.985	0.17±1.02 0.440	-0.03±0.87 0.884
N30	0.8±1.1 < 0.001	0.97 ± 0.88 < 0.001	0.4 ± 1.03 0.855	-0.07 ± 0.72 0.641	-0.19±0.61 0.139	0.21±0.74 0.194
N25	0.31±0.86 0.074	0.59 ± 0.71 < 0.001	0.1 ± 0.7 0.495	-0.01 ± 0.58 0.908	-0.19±0.7 0.190	-0.04±0.56 0.729
N20	0.09±0.57 0.429	0.24 ± 0.56 0.035	0.05 ± 0.51 0.629	-0.11 ± 0.45 0.277	0.01±0.42 0.953	0.02±0.39 0.837
N15	0.03 ± 0.43 0.717	0.04 ±0.34 0.529	0.02 ± 0.29 0.683	-0.03 ± 0.33 0.635	-0.03±0.3 0.674	0.04±0.38 0.635
N10	0.02 ± 0.35 0.716	0.06±0.25 0.206	0.03 ± 0.32 0.630	-0.06 ± 0.32 0.366	-0.04±0.23 0.386	0±0.29 0.956
N5	0.02 ± 0.19 0.578	-0.04±0.25 0.351	-0.01 ± 0.37 0.865	0.04 ± 0.36 0.612	-0.01±0.26 0.911	0.13±0.26 0.026
T5	-0.02 ± 0.31 0.708	-0.12±0.43 0.171	0.09 ± 0.28 0.125	0.01 ± 0.26 0.961	-0.06±0.37 0.428	0.03±0.26 0.597
T10	-0.13 ± 0.50 0.196	-0.1±0.46 0.244	0.05 ± 0.32 0.421	-0.09 ± 0.38 0.274	0±0.35 0.972	0.03±0.31 0.653
T15	0.06 ± 0.92 0.733	-0.02 ±0.57 0.847	0.06 ± 0.33 0.398	-0.01 ± 0.29 0.914	-0.08±0.28 0.144	-0.03±0.39 0.705
T20	0.2 ± 0.77 0.178	0.42 ±0.85 0.018	-0.02 ± 0.48 0.852	0.01 ± 0.37 0.903	-0.07±0.44 0.408	-0.02±0.38 0.786
T25	0.54 ± 0.90 0.018	0.66 ±0.86 < 0.001	-0.01 ± 0.37 0.894	0.04 ± 0.36 0.577	-0.02±0.45 0.805	0.04±0.39 0.645
T30	0.76 ± 1.09 0.001	0.9 ±0.97 < 0.001	0.09 ± 0.42 0.310	0.03 ± 0.41 0.668	0.1±0.42 0.250	0.04±0.44 0.662
T35	1.06 ± 1.06 < 0.001	1.23 ±0.96 < 0.001	-0.01 ± 0.46 0.967	-0.08 ± 0.43 0.389	-0.03±0.61 0.793	-0.01±0.42 0.922

Figure 1 illustrates the RPRE without contact lenses and with SVCL for the spherical equivalent value M, horizontal astigmatism component J₀, and oblique astigmatism component J₄₅. The hyperopic defocus is greater at the nasal and temporal visual field in the spherical equivalent values M graph. However, J₀ and J₄₅ graphs show flat curves from central toward both peripheral sides which indicates no changes at the relative peripheral refraction in baseline as well as in SVCL.

Figure 1. The relative peripheral refractive error for baseline (without contact lens) and with using single vision contact lens.

The spherical equivalent value M, horizontal astigmatism component J₀, and oblique astigmatism component J₄₅ in condition of baseline and with using single vision contact lens (SVCL).

Although the mean spherical equivalent value M was greater when using single vision soft contact lens SVCL compared with no correction (WL) at all eccentricities, the paired sample t-test used to compare the mean spherical equivalent M between baseline and SVCL showed no statistical significant difference among all eccentricity points (p> 0.05) except at 25º temporal VF (p=0.013) and 20º nasal VF (p=0.004). The horizontal astigmatism component J₀, and oblique astigmatism component J₄₅ showed no statistically significant difference at all eccentricity points between baseline and when using SVCL.

	Baseline (no CL)															SVCL
pt No.	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	C	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	C	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35
1	-1.56	-2.18	-2.74	-3.68	-3.3	-3.49	-3.55	-3.43	-3.55	-3.99	-3.8	-3.99	-3.55	-3.49	-3.42	2.07	1.32	1.07	0.01	-0.06	0.07	-0.06	0.07	-0.31	-0.44	-0.69	-0.25	-0.19	0.38	0.95
2	-4.75	-5.12	-5.99	-5.87	-5.93	-5.62	-5.56	-5.68	-6.12	-5.55	-6	-6.12	-5.87	-5.5	-5.56	0.88	0.13	-0.25	-0.63	-0.43	-0.62	-0.25	-0.12	-0.63	-0.5	-0.5	-0.69	0.2	-0.12	-0.01
3	-3.62	-3.79	-4.37	-4.18	-3.99	-4.05	-4.18	-4.18	-3.68	-3.87	-2.99	-3.62	-2.68	-3.3	-2.24	1.32	0.75	0.63	0.75	0.45	0.38	0.25	0.25	0.32	0.57	0.51	1.19	1.44	2.32	2.38
4	-4.55	-3.5	-4.49	-4.43	-4.93	-4.87	-4.68	-4.62	-4.18	-4.06	-3.75	-4.18	-3.68	-3.68	-3.56	0.25	-0.56	-0.87	-0.5	-0.43	-0.69	-0.75	-0.69	-0.63	-0.06	-0.31	-0.06	0.63	0.82	0.69
5	-4.25	-3.93	-4.56	-4.37	-4.5	-4.43	-4.43	-4.8	-4.8	-4.62	-3.99	-3.43	-2.68	-2	-2.06	1.32	1.01	0.57	0.2	0.26	0.01	0	-0.18	-0.38	-0.38	0.38	0.94	1.5	2	2.63
6	-4.18	-4.55	-4.75	-5.18	-5.5	-5.05	-5.18	-5.37	-4.99	-4.87	-5.18	-4.62	-4.62	-3.62	-2.93	1.5	1.07	0.07	0	-0.37	0.07	-0.31	-0.25	-0.25	-0.25	0.25	0.32	0.75	1.07	1.88
7	-0.44	-0.88	-1.81	-2.56	-2.87	-3.25	-3.31	-3.5	-3.25	-3.75	-3.43	-3.37	-2.5	-2.87	-2.62	1.38	0.94	0.76	0.38	0.13	0.13	-0.13	0.01	-0.06	0.01	0.57	0.32	1.07	1.32	1.51
8	0.2	-1.18	-1.74	-2.37	-2.74	-2.99	-3.3	-3.43	-3.37	-3.3	-3.49	-2.25	-1.93	-1.31	-1.68	2.57	2	1.26	0.82	0.32	0.26	-0.06	-0.12	-0.19	-0.06	0.01	0.88	1.32	1.07	1.69
9	-3.68	-4.8	-5.37	-5.31	-5.99	-5.87	-5.99	-5.87	-5.62	-5.37	-4.68	-4.25	-3.75	-2.25	-2.37	1.88	1.38	0.88	0.25	-0.37	-0.5	-1	-0.37	-0.12	0.32	0.44	1.82	2	2.45	3.01
10	-4.05	-4.5	-5.25	-5.24	-5.18	-5.25	-5.05	-5.3	-5.62	-5.24	-5.93	-5.55	-5.5	-5.62	-5.5	0.38	0.5	0.51	-0.18	-0.62	-0.37	-0.31	-0.25	-0.5	-0.62	-0.5	-0.13	0.26	-0.06	0.13
11	-5.74	-5.87	-6	-5.99	-6.31	-6.06	-5.62	-5.93	-5.87	-6.3	-6.25	-6.43	-6.24	-5.8	-5.68	2.13	0.7	0.88	0.63	0.07	0.38	0.13	0.01	-0.63	-0.62	-0.06	0.01	0.26	1.01	0.5
12	-1.49	-2.18	-2.43	-2.87	-2.8	-3.43	-3.31	-3.31	-3.87	-4.24	-4.3	-4.25	-3.68	-3.25	-2.5	1.2	0.88	0.5	0.13	0.13	0.07	-0.44	-0.19	-0.5	-1.12	-1	-0.5	-0.25	0.2	0.57
13	-3.18	-3.62	-4.05	-3.87	-3.62	-3.56	-3.55	-3.49	-3.37	-3.25	-2.99	-3	-2.93	-2.55	-2.43	-0.68	-0.75	-1	-0.81	-0.81	-0.56	-0.5	-0.25	-0.31	-0.5	-0.13	0.63	0.45	0.5	0.82
14	-5.37	-5.5	-5.37	-4.56	-4.56	-4.3	-4	-3.62	-3.56	-3.62	-4.43	-4.37	-4.05	-4.05	-4.37	-1.81	-1.62	-1.43	-1.37	-0.87	-0.43	-0.38	-0.44	0.13	-0.12	-0.68	-0.19	-0.12	-0.06	-0.31
15	-5.74	-5.99	-5.99	-5.37	-5.31	-4.87	-4.5	-4.68	-4.87	-5.12	-5.06	-4.68	-4.81	-4.99	-4.49	-0.87	-0.5	-0.31	-0.81	-0.25	-0.06	-0.13	0	-0.81	-0.19	-0.12	0.32	0.38	-0.18	0.38
16	-2.68	-2.06	-2.8	-3.87	-3.87	-3.8	-3.37	-3.43	-3.25	-3.18	-3.37	-2.93	-3.24	-2.93	-2.74	0.82	-0.06	-0.38	-0.62	-0.56	-0.63	-0.31	-0.19	0.07	-0.06	-0.19	1.01	0.38	0.63	0.69
17	-3.25	-3.3	-4.24	-5.3	-5.18	-5.37	-5.43	-5.56	-5.37	-5.68	-4.93	-4.87	-4.24	-4	-3.81	2.69	2	1.57	1.07	0.38	0.07	0	-0.19	0.07	-0.19	0.57	1.25	1.13	1.57	1.95
18	-2.62	-2.5	-3.05	-3.75	-4.37	-3.99	-3.87	-3.99	-4.06	-4.81	-4.5	-4.12	-3.87	-3.8	-3.62	0.76	1.32	1.13	0	-0.5	-0.19	-0.13	-0.25	-0.38	-0.94	-0.68	-0.75	-0.06	0.32	1.07
19	-4.37	-4.62	-5.3	-5.43	-5.56	-4.99	-5.18	-5.37	-5.43	-5.87	-5.74	-5.18	-5.43	-4.87	-4.87	1.57	1.32	0.88	0.25	0.13	0.13	0.07	-0.25	-0.31	-0.62	-0.38	-0.06	0	0.25	0.76
20	-4.68	-5.31	-5.18	-5.18	-5.3	-5.24	-4.87	-4.8	-4.93	-4.93	-4.62	-4.43	-3.43	-3.18	-2.24	-0.38	0.19	-0.44	-0.44	-0.25	-0.44	-0.43	-0.5	-0.5	-0.63	-0.31	0.7	0.69	1.38	2.01
21	-3.68	-3.55	-3.62	-3.75	-2.81	-3.25	-3.37	-3.24	-3.31	-3.18	-2.87	-2.37	-2.25	-2	-1.87	1.38	0.88	0.38	0.2	0	0.07	-0.38	-0.06	0	-0.12	-0.25	0.45	-0.13	-0.06	-0.19
22	-0.88	-0.62	-1.62	-2.5	-2.99	-3.06	-3.45	-3.37	-4.18	-4.62	-4.43	-4.5	-4.06	-3.62	-3.49	3.32	1.63	1.13	0.32	-0.06	0	-0.81	-0.44	-1.99	-0.88	-1.87	-1.99	-1.68	-1.8	-0.18
23	-2.68	-3.62	-4.68	-4.25	-4.56	-4.74	-5.37	-5.06	-4.87	-5.18	-5.31	-4.99	-5.05	-4.87	-3.87	2.26	1.7	0.88	0.88	0.26	0.25	0.45	-0.25	-0.12	-0.25	-0.25	0.32	0.38	0.69	0.94
24	-3.87	-4.18	-4.56	-5.12	-5.37	-5.56	-5.43	-5.62	-6.18	-6.62	-6.71	-6.18	-5.62	-5.62	-5.25	1.57	1.88	1.19	0.13	0.2	0.26	-0.06	-0.18	-0.62	-0.81	-0.99	-0.5	-0.06	0.75	0.32
25	-3.68	-3.62	-3.99	-4.87	-4.49	-4.8	-4.24	-4	-4.24	-4.74	-5.43	-4.87	-4.75	-5	-3.75	1.2	0.57	-0.25	-0.44	-1.12	-0.75	-0.93	-0.75	-0.93	-1.43	-1.43	-1.55	-1.24	-1.56	-0.88
26	-3.87	-4.24	-4.3	-4.24	-4.31	-4.56	-4.18	-3.87	-3.68	-3.56	-1.07	-2.87	-2.93	-3.31	-2.74	0.32	0	-0.31	-0.68	-0.75	-0.56	-0.43	-0.37	-0.12	0.2	0.01		0.94	1	0.25

Dataset 1.Spherical equivalent refractive error M.

The spherical equivalent refractive error M was measured for each participant with and without contact lenses.

	Baseline (no CL)															SVCL
pt No.	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	C	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	C	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35
1	-0.62	-0.27	-0.39	0.31	-0.18	0	0	0.17	0.08	0.11	-0.54	0.13	0.11	0.44	0.44	0.28	-0.03	0.44	-0.06	-0.03	0.18	0.02	0.18	-0.08	-0.17	0.16	0.59	0.04	0.3	0.55
2	1.12	-0.09	0.21	-0.06	-0.09	0.24	-0.19	0.03	-0.35	0.81	0.86	0.24	-0.25	-0.45	0.54	-0.3	-0.88	-0.75	0.33	-0.14	-0.1	0.05	0.2	-0.03	-0.27	-0.04	-0.26	0.68	0.24	0.33
3	-0.35	-0.49	-0.35	0.08	-0.48	0.09	-0.42	0.47	-0.47	0.62	0.03	-0.1	0.11	-0.9	0.19	-0.23	0.12	0	0.19	0.43	0.21	0.33	0.08	0.36	0.04	-0.3	0.14	-0.7	0.11	-0.38
4	0.08	0.62	-1	-0.09	-0.11	0.25	0.03	-0.24	0.28	0.16	-0.29	-0.15	-0.18	0.18	0.07	-0.08	0.05	0.41	-0.36	-0.12	-0.17	0.37	-0.29	-0.32	0.24	-0.12	-0.02	-0.11	-0.08	0.2
5	0.67	-1.52	0.08	0.14	-0.26	-0.07	0.26	0.13	0.13	0	0.36	0.52	-0.22	0.3	0.67	0.64	-0.87	0.25	0.08	0.14	0.12	-0.21	0.13	-0.36	-0.15	0.19	-0.34	0	0.03	-0.37
6	0.4	0.31	0.59	0.49	0.27	-0.02	-0.15	0.04	-0.36	0.25	-0.25	-0.43	-0.17	-0.34	0.37	0.74	0.74	-0.67	0.4	-0.25	0.05	0.18	0.02	-0.16	0.21	0.07	0.31	0.23	-0.06	0
7	0.93	-0.44	-0.09	0.18	0.03	-0.12	0.1	-0.37	0.04	-0.15	-0.04	-0.62	0.39	-1.1	0.99	-0.98	-0.54	0.35	0	0	-0.02	0.12	-0.11	-0.28	-0.55	0.11	0.04	-0.35	0.49	0.14
8	-0.22	0.5	0.16	0.02	-0.08	-0.13	0.31	0	0.12	0.05	0.18	-0.11	0.03	0.42	-0.45	0.07	-0.01	0.07	0.18	0.08	0.07	-0.05	-0.24	-0.16	-0.46	-0.31	0.12	-0.09	1	-0.53
9	-0.09	-1.28	0.52	-0.43	-0.03	-0.2	0.5	-0.6	0.26	-0.09	0.66	0.6	-0.32	0.31	0.28	0.61	0.49	-0.23	-0.17	-0.42	-0.42	0.74	0.31	0.09	-0.47	0.23	-0.56	0.21	0.08	-0.03
10	-0.58	0.61	-0.29	0.03	0.13	-0.28	0	-0.08	-0.38	0.74	-0.3	0.27	-0.1	0.59	0.61	0.37	-0.36	0.13	0.05	-0.23	-0.25	0.18	-0.23	-0.02	0.06	-0.18	-0.27	0.12	-0.25	-0.4
11	-0.27	0.9	0.02	-0.02	0.43	-0.19	-0.47	0	0.17	-0.47	-0.07	0.32	0	0.46	0.09	-0.3	-0.75	-0.66	0.49	0.43	0.15	-0.11	-0.1	0.37	0.49	-0.29	-0.01	0.04	-0.37	-0.25
12	0.15	-0.26	-0.43	0.12	0.01	-0.31	0.43	-0.33	0.48	-0.46	-0.1	0.12	0.3	-0.22	-0.55	0.66	0.05	-0.75	-0.25	-0.33	-0.43	0.32	0.43	-0.26	-0.02	-0.35	0.75	-0.32	0.64	-0.1
13	-0.57	1.22	-0.55	-0.5	0.13	0.18	0.29	0	-0.23	0	-0.25	0.09	0.03	-0.22	-0.31	1.77	-0.97	0.87	-0.24	0.09	-0.18	-0.17	-0.11	0.17	0.12	0.37	0.07	0.07	0.12	-0.41
14	0.96	-1.06	-0.71	-0.67	0.36	-0.3	-0.36	0.32	0.18	-0.24	0.22	-0.39	-0.55	-0.08	0.31	1	0.09	-0.42	0.12	-0.22	-0.3	-0.31	0.29	0.32	-0.21	0.24	0.43	0.15	-0.12	-0.32
15	1.71	-1.74	1.25	-0.58	0.38	-0.06	-0.05	-0.17	0.2	-0.14	-0.18	0.62	0.01	-0.25	-0.25	1.25	0.94	0.45	0.45	-0.2	0.2	0.31	0.25	0.04	0.18	-0.23	-0.1	0.08	-0.16	-0.08
16	0.6	1	1.14	0.35	-0.4	0.11	-0.21	-0.15	-0.2	-0.03	-0.36	-0.68	0.06	-0.4	-0.04	0.68	1.14	0.53	-0.71	-0.43	-0.35	0.11	-0.18	-0.04	0.08	0.37	0	0.2	-0.22	0.13
17	-1.1	0.74	0.15	0.03	-0.17	0.22	-0.02	0.41	-0.01	0.03	0.25	-0.16	0.24	0.52	0.82	0.05	0.08	-0.34	-0.47	-0.14	-0.47	0.17	-0.06	-0.22	-0.18	0.18	-0.03	0.13	-0.43	-0.26
18	0.09	-0.26	0.29	-0.01	-0.11	-0.25	-0.27	-0.45	-0.43	0.31	-0.33	-0.25	-0.23	-0.1	0.25	-0.58	0.11	0	0	-0.09	0	-0.37	0.1	0.28	-0.22	-0.52	0.21	0.08	-0.28	0.43
19	0.76	-1.22	0.22	-0.49	0.3	0	-0.04	0	-0.05	0.07	-0.25	0.33	0.1	0.36	0.26	-0.79	-0.39	-0.18	0.1	0.33	-0.09	0.01	-0.16	-0.08	-0.21	-0.13	0.1	-0.22	0	0.13
20	1.46	0.81	-1.38	0.28	-0.58	-0.23	0	0.04	-0.18	-0.42	0.04	-0.21	-0.38	0.19	-0.49	-1.83	0.63	-1.18	0.21	0.3	-0.15	0.27	-0.06	-0.22	0.13	-0.21	-0.07	-0.18	-0.11	-0.22
21	1.04	0.71	0.11	-0.13	-0.18	0	-0.16	0	0.17	-0.07	0.37	-0.1	0.85	-1.12	0.76	0.98	-0.17	0.06	0.43	-0.09	0.14	-0.32	0.03	-0.2	0	0.29	0.4	0.37	0.48	0.55
22	0.3	-0.75	0.61	0.13	0.08	-0.09	-0.29	-0.13	0.23	0.13	0.38	-0.3	-0.41	-0.79	0.94	-0.79	0.68	0.62	-0.17	-0.1	0	0.32	0.32	0.19	-0.22	0.09	0	-0.22	0.14	-0.71
23	-0.11	0.53	0.44	0.3	-0.06	0	-0.15	-0.14	0.25	0.32	0.26	0.11	-0.79	-0.98	0.06	1.12	-0.56	0.49	0.02	0.11	0.19	0.43	0	0	-0.15	-0.24	-0.41	-0.03	-0.3	-0.34
24	0.41	-0.14	-0.15	0.21	-0.14	0.68	0.55	-0.07	0.18	0	0.16	-0.27	-0.08	0.26	-0.86	-0.29	-0.21	-0.05	0	-0.43	-0.05	0.36	-0.47	-0.42	-0.17	0.04	-0.06	0	0.15	-0.19
25	-1.28	1.5	1.25	-0.71	0.49	0.15	0	0.36	0	0.23	0.22	-0.17	0.5	0.62	-0.52	0.08	0.82	0.82	-0.48	-0.04	0.24	0.02	-0.08	0.17	-0.16	0.28	-0.4	-0.35	-0.15	-0.61
26	-1.87	1.52	-1.23	0.63	0.12	-0.32	0.3	-0.24	0.18	0.14	-0.43	-0.37	-0.18	0.22	-0.25	1	-1.18	-1.12	-0.66	-0.23	0.3	-0.05	0.25	-0.14	-0.18	0.28	0	0.04	-0.2	0.44
27	-0.6	-0.93	1.18	0.49	0.47	-0.31	0.02	0	0.29	0.06	0.36	-0.85	-0.35	0.23	-0.45	0.26	-0.71	-0.08	-0.3	0.31	-0.15	0.24	-0.04	-0.23	-0.24	-0.56	-0.76	-0.37	0.22	0.88

Dataset 2.Horizontal astigmatism components J0.

The horizontal astigmatism components J₀ were measured for each participant with and without contact lenses.

	Baseline (no CL)															SVCL
pt No.	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	C	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	C	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35
1	-0.86	-0.76	-0.31	0.03	0.03	0	-0.18	0.26	-0.17	-0.07	0.15	-0.61	0.29	-0.45	-0.82	0.76	-0.56	0.34	0.11	0.05	0.05	0.18	0.4	0.17	-0.07	-0.1	0.22	-0.18	0.4	0.41
2	0.08	-1.12	-0.98	-0.75	0.43	-0.06	0	-0.05	-0.13	0.03	-0.17	-0.44	0.43	0.44	0.42	1.34	0.48	-0.05	-0.18	0.27	0.49	-0.25	0.15	-0.37	0.26	-0.62	-0.35	0.02	-0.06	-0.18
3	-0.94	0.11	-0.13	-0.17	0.14	-0.55	0.12	-0.3	-0.3	0.09	0.25	-0.07	-0.55	0.56	-0.98	-0.65	-0.22	0	0.16	-0.06	-0.13	-0.38	-0.49	0.24	-0.04	-0.22	-0.28	0.4	1.05	-0.49
4	0.93	0.03	-0.06	0.43	-0.29	0.02	-0.18	-0.08	0.34	-0.1	-0.24	0.27	0.03	-0.04	0.17	-1	0.56	0.29	0.09	-0.29	-0.4	0.01	0.32	0.2	-0.51	-0.28	-0.18	-0.36	0.55	0.24
5	1.75	0.34	0.93	-0.74	0.27	-0.17	-0.16	-0.28	0.28	0	-0.34	0.2	0.22	-0.55	-0.66	0.84	-0.05	0.64	-0.43	0.35	0.04	0.13	-0.28	-0.11	-0.11	-0.72	-0.45	0	0.5	-0.03
6	0.4	0.31	0.59	0.49	0.27	-0.02	-0.15	0.04	-0.36	0.25	-0.25	-0.43	-0.17	-0.34	0.37	0.74	0.74	-0.67	0.4	-0.25	0.05	0.18	0.02	-0.16	0.21	0.07	0.31	0.23	-0.06	0
7	0.07	0.44	0.42	-0.04	-0.12	0.02	0.15	0.06	0.12	0.61	-0.56	-0.05	1.06	0.23	0.76	0.54	0.13	0.13	0	0	0.12	-0.02	0.05	0.14	0.29	0.29	-0.18	-0.26	-0.48	-0.61
8	-0.65	-0.26	0.47	0.37	-0.24	0.21	0.04	-0.18	0.02	-0.31	-0.73	0.06	0.31	-0.11	-0.33	-0.3	-0.25	0.1	0.02	-0.3	0.1	-0.18	-0.07	-0.1	-0.31	0.54	-0.22	0.16	-1.03	-0.19
9	-1.18	0.29	-0.54	-0.03	-0.25	-0.14	0.01	-0.18	0.57	0.62	-0.18	-0.16	0.19	0.22	-0.56	0.44	-0.11	-0.3	0.18	-0.27	0.26	-0.47	0.68	0.62	-0.3	0.51	0	-0.45	-0.17	-0.37
10	-0.58	0.61	-0.29	0.03	0.13	-0.28	0	-0.08	-0.38	0.74	-0.3	0.27	-0.1	0.59	0.61	0.37	-0.36	0.13	0.05	-0.23	-0.25	0.18	-0.23	-0.02	0.06	-0.18	-0.27	0.12	-0.25	-0.4
11	1.22	0.67	0.37	-0.5	-0.06	-0.66	-0.74	-0.68	-0.6	-0.3	0.11	-0.29	0	0.33	-0.3	-0.4	-0.56	0.35	-0.09	0.05	0.48	-0.36	0.36	0.05	0.07	0.62	-0.37	0.62	0.06	-0.02
12	0.15	-0.26	-0.43	0.12	0.01	-0.31	0.43	-0.33	0.48	-0.46	-0.1	0.12	0.3	-0.22	-0.55	0.66	0.05	-0.75	-0.25	-0.33	-0.43	0.32	0.43	-0.26	-0.02	-0.35	0.75	-0.32	0.64	-0.1
13	1.04	-0.26	0.93	-0.38	0.35	0.02	0.12	-0.25	-0.1	-0.12	-0.03	-0.08	0.05	0.22	0.31	-0.38	-1.3	0.06	-0.64	-0.43	-0.01	0.18	0.05	-0.08	-0.02	0.04	0.5	0.17	-0.22	-0.15
14	-0.98	-0.38	-0.51	0.16	0.25	0.08	0.1	0.38	0.05	-0.07	-0.21	-0.31	0.09	0.3	-0.54	-1.03	1.06	-0.54	-0.61	0.45	-0.09	-0.21	-0.33	-0.2	-0.14	0.19	0.05	0.48	0.42	0.29
15	-0.37	-0.14	0.09	-0.22	-0.21	0.11	0.11	-0.07	-0.32	-0.21	-0.01	0.53	0.18	-0.02	-0.02	0.09	0.35	0.33	0.33	-0.14	-0.23	0.21	0.04	0.31	0.03	-0.09	0.68	-0.09	0.27	0.37
16	1.57	-1.03	-0.64	-0.66	-0.29	0.29	0.13	-0.1	-0.32	0.18	0.1	0.1	-0.24	0.39	-0.75	-1.27	-0.64	-0.99	-0.25	-0.03	-0.13	0.15	-0.06	-0.31	0.17	-0.23	-0.87	0.15	-0.3	-0.55
17	0.25	-0.76	-0.73	0.31	-0.07	-0.11	-0.31	0.15	-0.25	0.43	0.19	0.73	-0.44	0.71	-0.44	0.56	1	-0.44	0.49	-0.35	-0.3	-0.18	-0.43	0.22	-0.05	0.01	-0.25	0.35	-0.03	-0.35
18	0.23	0.27	0.11	-0.12	0.05	0.04	0.42	0.21	-0.06	-0.3	0.17	-0.03	-0.09	-0.29	-0.04	-0.23	0.15	0	0	0.08	-0.18	0.06	-0.36	-0.25	0.38	-0.22	-0.72	-0.3	0.14	0.05
19	0.99	0.27	-1.04	0.27	-0.31	0	-0.05	0	0.18	0.1	-0.03	0.28	-0.42	-0.35	0.7	0.18	0.71	-0.47	-0.49	-0.18	-0.23	-0.06	-0.19	0.17	-0.14	-0.35	-0.42	0.12	0	-0.61
20	1.46	0.81	-1.38	0.28	-0.58	-0.23	0	0.04	-0.18	-0.42	0.04	-0.21	-0.38	0.19	-0.49	-1.83	0.63	-1.18	0.21	0.3	-0.15	0.27	-0.06	-0.22	0.13	-0.21	-0.07	-0.18	-0.11	-0.22
21	-0.22	-0.39	-0.49	0.61	-0.01	0.12	-0.19	0	0.07	-0.17	-0.09	0.49	-0.2	-0.07	0.99	-0.55	0.86	0.75	0.02	0.49	-0.28	0.19	-0.18	-0.15	0	0.41	0.17	0.03	0.65	0.75
22	-0.55	-0.06	-0.13	0.35	0.24	0.16	0.14	0.22	-0.21	0.35	-0.21	-0.23	-0.55	0.8	0.35	0.16	0.55	0.04	-0.07	-0.29	0	-0.29	-0.29	0.16	-0.3	0.23	0	-0.51	-0.28	0.39
23	-1.43	-0.99	-0.82	0.22	-0.17	0	-0.2	0.13	0.03	-0.29	0.35	-0.49	0.16	0.2	0.87	0.08	-0.75	-0.11	0.25	-0.06	-0.17	0.05	0.25	0	-0.2	0.05	-0.15	-0.37	0.06	-0.45
24	0.29	0.27	-0.11	-0.13	0.21	-0.1	0.08	0.49	-0.39	0	0.41	0.14	-0.24	0.7	0.18	-0.1	0.13	0.31	0	0	0.37	0.43	-0.3	-0.27	-0.4	-0.25	0.11	-0.56	-0.73	-0.66
25	1.28	0.11	0.09	0.71	-0.11	-0.27	0	-0.1	0	0.09	-0.38	-0.47	0.38	-0.61	-0.7	1.18	-0.44	0.3	0.49	-0.5	0.08	0.06	-0.1	0.07	0.09	-0.48	0.39	0.35	-0.41	0.13
26	-0.12	-0.86	-0.44	1.64	1.43	0.61	-0.08	-0.08	-0.05	0.12	0.07	0.34	-0.25	-0.38	0.43	-1.03	-0.42	-0.4	-0.48	0.44	-0.08	0.31	0	-0.21	0	-0.25	0	0.05	-0.15	-0.23

Dataset 3.Oblique astigmatism components J45.

The oblique astigmatism components J₄₅ was measured for each participant with and without contact lenses.

	Baseline (no CL)															SVCL
	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35		T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35
1	1.87	1.25	0.69	-0.25	-0.13	-0.06	-0.12	-0.12	-0.56	-0.37	-0.56	-0.12	-0.06	0.01	1	2.01	1.26	1.01	-0.06	-0.13	0	-0.12	-0.37	-0.5	-0.75	-0.31	-0.25	0.32	0.88
2	0.93	0.57	-0.31	-0.19	-0.25	0.06	0.13	-0.44	0.13	-0.32	-0.44	-0.19	0.19	0.13	2	1	0.25	-0.13	-0.51	-0.31	-0.5	-0.13	-0.51	-0.38	-0.38	-0.57	0.32	0	0.09
3	0.56	0.39	-0.19	0.01	0.19	0.13	0.01	0.5	0.32	1.19	0.57	1.5	0.88	1.94	3	1.07	0.5	0.38	0.5	0.2	0.13	0	0.07	0.32	0.26	0.94	1.19	2.07	2.13
4	0.07	1.13	0.13	0.2	-0.31	-0.25	-0.06	0.45	0.57	0.88	0.44	0.95	0.95	1.07	4	0.94	0.13	-0.19	0.19	0.26	0	-0.06	0.06	0.63	0.38	0.63	1.31	1.51	1.38
5	0.56	0.87	0.25	0.43	0.31	0.38	0.37	0	0.18	0.81	1.37	2.12	2.81	2.75	5	1.5	1.19	0.75	0.38	0.44	0.19	0.18	-0.2	-0.2	0.56	1.12	1.68	2.18	2.81
6	1.19	0.82	0.62	0.2	-0.13	0.32	0.2	0.38	0.5	0.19	0.75	0.76	1.75	2.45	6	1.75	1.31	0.31	0.25	-0.13	0.32	-0.06	-0.01	-0.01	0.5	0.57	1	1.31	2.13
7	3.06	2.62	1.69	0.94	0.63	0.25	0.19	0.25	-0.25	0.07	0.13	1	0.63	0.88	7	1.37	0.93	0.75	0.37	0.12	0.12	-0.14	-0.07	0	0.56	0.31	1.06	1.31	1.5
8	3.63	2.25	1.69	1.06	0.69	0.44	0.13	0.06	0.13	-0.06	1.18	1.5	2.12	1.75	8	2.69	2.12	1.38	0.94	0.44	0.38	0.06	-0.07	0.06	0.13	1	1.44	1.19	1.81
9	2.19	1.07	0.5	0.56	-0.12	0	-0.12	0.25	0.5	1.19	1.62	2.12	3.62	3.5	9	2.25	1.75	1.25	0.62	0	-0.13	-0.63	0.25	0.69	0.81	2.19	2.37	2.82	3.38
10	1.25	0.8	0.05	0.06	0.12	0.05	0.25	-0.32	0.06	-0.63	-0.25	-0.2	-0.32	-0.2	10	0.63	0.75	0.76	0.07	-0.37	-0.12	-0.06	-0.25	-0.37	-0.25	0.12	0.51	0.19	0.38
11	0.19	0.06	-0.07	-0.06	-0.38	-0.13	0.31	0.06	-0.37	-0.32	-0.5	-0.31	0.13	0.25	11	2.12	0.69	0.87	0.62	0.06	0.37	0.12	-0.64	-0.63	-0.07	0	0.25	1	0.49
12	1.82	1.13	0.88	0.44	0.51	-0.12	0	-0.56	-0.93	-0.99	-0.94	-0.37	0.06	0.81	12	1.39	1.07	0.69	0.32	0.32	0.26	-0.25	-0.31	-0.93	-0.81	-0.31	-0.06	0.39	0.76
13	0.31	-0.13	-0.56	-0.38	-0.13	-0.07	-0.06	0.12	0.24	0.5	0.49	0.56	0.94	1.06	13	-0.43	-0.5	-0.75	-0.56	-0.56	-0.31	-0.25	-0.06	-0.25	0.12	0.88	0.7	0.75	1.07
14	-1.75	-1.88	-1.75	-0.94	-0.94	-0.68	-0.38	0.06	0	-0.81	-0.75	-0.43	-0.43	-0.75	14	-1.37	-1.18	-0.99	-0.93	-0.43	0.01	0.06	0.57	0.32	-0.24	0.25	0.32	0.38	0.13
15	-1.06	-1.31	-1.31	-0.69	-0.63	-0.19	0.18	-0.19	-0.44	-0.38	0	-0.13	-0.31	0.19	15	-0.87	-0.5	-0.31	-0.81	-0.25	-0.06	-0.13	-0.81	-0.19	-0.12	0.32	-0.38	-0.18	0.38
16	0.75	1.37	0.63	-0.44	-0.44	-0.37	0.06	0.18	0.25	0.06	0.5	0.19	0.5	0.69	16	1.01	0.13	-0.19	-0.43	-0.37	-0.44	-0.12	0.26	0.13	0	1.2	0.57	0.82	0.88
17	2.31	2.26	1.32	0.26	0.38	0.19	0.13	0.19	-0.12	0.63	0.69	1.32	1.56	1.75	17	2.88	2.19	1.76	1.26	0.57	0.26	0.19	0.26	0	0.76	1.44	1.32	1.76	2.14
18	1.37	1.49	0.94	0.24	-0.38	0	0.12	-0.07	-0.82	-0.51	-0.13	0.12	0.19	0.37	18	1.01	1.57	1.38	0.25	-0.25	0.06	0.12	-0.13	-0.69	-0.43	-0.5	0.19	0.57	1.32
19	1	0.75	0.07	-0.06	-0.19	0.38	0.19	-0.06	-0.5	-0.37	0.19	-0.06	0.5	0.5	19	1.82	1.57	1.13	0.5	0.38	0.38	0.32	-0.06	-0.37	-0.13	0.19	0.25	0.5	1.01
20	0.12	-0.51	-0.38	-0.38	-0.5	-0.44	-0.07	-0.13	-0.13	0.18	0.37	1.37	1.62	2.56	20	0.12	0.69	0.06	0.06	0.25	0.06	0.07	0	-0.13	0.19	1.2	1.19	1.88	2.51
21	-0.44	-0.31	-0.38	-0.51	0.43	-0.01	-0.13	-0.07	0.06	0.37	0.87	0.99	1.24	1.37	21	1.44	0.94	0.44	0.26	0.06	0.13	-0.32	0.06	-0.06	-0.19	0.51	-0.07	0	-0.13
22	2.49	2.75	1.75	0.87	0.38	0.31	-0.08	-0.81	-1.25	-1.06	-1.13	-0.69	-0.25	-0.12	22	3.76	2.07	1.57	0.76	0.38	0.44	-0.37	-1.55	-0.44	-1.43	-1.55	-1.24	-1.36	0.26
23	2.38	1.44	0.38	0.81	0.5	0.63	-0.31	0.19	-0.12	-0.25	0.07	0.01	0.19	1.19	23	2.51	1.95	1.13	1.13	0.51	-0.2	0.7	0.13	0	0	0.57	0.63	0.94	1.19
24	1.75	1.44	1.06	0.5	0.25	0.06	0.19	-0.56	-1	-1.09	-0.56	0	0	0.37	24	1.75	2.06	1.37	0.31	0.38	0.44	0.12	-0.44	-0.63	-0.81	-0.32	0.12	0.93	0.5
25	0.32	0.38	0.01	-0.87	-0.49	-0.8	-0.24	-0.24	-0.74	-1.43	-0.87	-0.75	-1	0.25	25	1.95	1.32	0.5	0.31	-0.37	0	-0.18	-0.18	-0.68	-0.68	-0.8	-0.49	-0.81	-0.13
26	0	-0.37	-0.43	-0.37	-0.44	-0.69	-0.31	0.19	0.31	2.8	1	0.94	0.56	1.13	26	0.69	0.37	0.06	-0.31	-0.38	-0.19	-0.06	0.25	0.57	0.38		1.31	1.37	0.62

Dataset 4.Relative peripheral refractive error M.

The relative peripheral refractive error M was calculated for each participant with and without contact lenses.

	Baseline (no CL)														SVCL
	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35
1	-0.79	-0.44	-0.56	0.14	-0.35	-0.17	-0.17	-0.09	0.2	-0.71	-0.04	-0.06	0.27	0.27	0.1	-0.21	0.26	-0.24	-0.21	0	-0.16	-0.26	0.09	-0.02	0.41	-0.15	0.12	0.37
2	1.09	-0.11	0.18	-0.09	-0.12	0.21	-0.21	-0.38	1.16	0.83	0.21	-0.28	-0.48	0.51	-0.5	-1.08	-0.95	0.13	-0.34	-0.3	-0.15	-0.23	-0.24	-0.24	-0.46	0.48	0.04	0.13
3	-0.58	1.02	-0.03	0.29	0.18	0.6	-0.01	0.39	0.34	0.41	1.13	0.78	0.36	0.19	-0.31	0.04	-0.08	0.11	0.35	0.13	0.25	0.28	-0.04	-0.38	0.06	-0.78	0.03	-0.46
4	0.32	0.86	-0.76	0.15	0.13	0.49	0.27	0.52	0.4	-0.05	0.09	0.06	0.42	0.31	0.21	0.34	0.7	-0.07	0.17	0.12	0.66	-0.03	0.53	0.17	0.27	0.18	0.21	0.49
5	0.54	-1.65	-0.05	0.01	-0.39	-0.2	0.13	0	-0.13	0.23	0.39	-0.35	0.17	0.54	0.51	-1	0.12	-0.05	0.01	-0.01	-0.34	-0.49	-0.28	0.06	-0.47	-0.13	-0.1	-0.5
6	-1.52	-1.15	1.05	-0.23	-0.01	0.07	0.14	0.14	0.26	0.07	0.51	0.59	0.62	0.03	0.88	0.45	0.02	0.18	-0.14	-0.1	-0.07	-0.31	0.02	0.37	-0.17	-0.22	0.31	-0.12
7	1.3	-0.07	0.28	0.55	0.4	0.25	0.47	0.41	0.22	0.33	-0.25	0.76	-0.73	1.36	-0.87	-0.43	0.46	0.11	0.11	0.09	0.23	-0.17	-0.44	0.22	0.15	-0.24	0.6	0.25
8	-0.22	0.5	0.16	0.02	-0.08	-0.13	0.31	0.12	0.05	0.18	-0.11	0.03	0.42	-0.45	0.31	0.23	0.31	0.42	0.32	0.31	0.19	0.08	-0.22	-0.07	0.36	0.15	1.24	-0.29
9	0.51	-0.68	1.12	0.17	0.57	0.4	1.1	0.86	0.51	1.26	1.2	0.28	0.91	0.88	0.3	0.18	-0.54	-0.48	-0.73	-0.73	0.43	-0.22	-0.78	-0.08	-0.87	-0.1	-0.23	-0.34
10	0.27	-0.42	-0.53	0.2	-0.43	-0.05	-0.86	0.03	-0.41	0.17	-0.46	-0.37	-0.09	-0.93	0.6	0.45	0.45	0.07	0	0.14	0.13	0.22	0.6	-0.5	0.36	0.45	-0.26	-0.21
11	-0.27	0.9	0.02	-0.02	0.43	-0.19	-0.47	0.17	-0.47	-0.07	0.32	0	0.46	0.09	-0.2	-0.65	-0.56	0.59	0.53	0.25	-0.01	0.47	0.59	-0.19	0.09	0.14	-0.27	-0.15
12	-0.45	-0.07	0.25	0.29	0.22	0.33	0.34	0.68	0.09	0.83	0.64	0.22	-0.02	0.57	-0.6	0.81	0	0.5	0.24	0	-0.23	0.49	-0.44	-0.08	0.11	0.6	0.31	0.48
13	-0.57	1.22	-0.55	-0.5	0.13	0.18	0.29	-0.23	0	-0.25	0.09	0.03	-0.22	-0.31	1.88	-0.86	0.98	-0.13	0.2	-0.07	-0.06	0.28	0.23	0.48	0.18	0.18	0.23	-0.3
14	0.64	-1.38	-1.03	-0.99	0.04	-0.62	-0.68	-0.14	-0.56	-0.1	-0.71	-0.87	-0.4	-0.01	0.71	-0.2	-0.71	-0.17	-0.51	-0.59	-0.6	0.03	-0.5	-0.05	0.14	-0.14	-0.41	-0.61
15	1.88	-1.57	1.42	-0.41	0.55	0.11	0.12	0.37	0.03	-0.01	0.79	0.18	-0.08	-0.08	1	0.69	0.2	0.2	-0.45	-0.05	0.06	-0.21	-0.07	-0.48	-0.35	-0.17	-0.41	-0.33
16	0.75	1.15	1.29	0.5	-0.25	0.26	-0.06	-0.05	0.12	-0.21	-0.21	0.21	-0.25	0.11	0.86	1.32	0.71	-0.53	-0.25	-0.17	0.29	0.14	0.26	0.55	0.55	0.38	-0.04	0.31
17	-1.51	0.33	-0.26	-0.38	-0.58	-0.19	-0.43	-0.42	-0.38	-0.16	-0.57	-0.17	0.11	0.41	0.11	0.14	-0.28	-0.41	-0.08	-0.41	0.23	-0.16	-0.12	0.24	0.03	0.19	-0.37	-0.2
18	0.54	0.19	0.74	0.44	0.34	0.2	0.18	0.02	0.76	0.12	0.2	0.22	0.35	0.7	-0.68	0.01	-0.1	-0.1	-0.19	-0.1	-0.47	0.18	-0.32	-0.62	0.11	-0.02	-0.38	0.33
19	0.76	-1.22	0.22	-0.49	0.3	0	-0.04	-0.05	0.07	-0.25	0.33	0.1	0.36	0.26	-0.63	-0.23	-0.02	0.26	0.49	0.07	0.17	0.08	-0.05	0.03	0.26	-0.06	0.16	0.29
20	-1.5	-1.53	0.69	0.71	-0.09	-0.14	-0.05	0	0.06	0.45	-0.57	0.16	-0.97	0.06	0.15	-1.39	-0.33	-1.15	0.16	-0.65	-0.39	-0.13	0.11	0.14	-0.41	0.55	0.25	-0.54
21	1.04	0.71	0.11	-0.13	-0.18	0	-0.16	0.17	-0.07	0.37	-0.1	0.85	-1.12	0.76	0.95	-0.2	0.03	0.4	-0.12	0.11	-0.35	-0.23	-0.03	0.26	0.37	0.34	0.45	0.52
22	0.43	-0.62	0.74	0.26	0.21	0.04	-0.16	0.36	0.26	0.51	-0.17	-0.28	-0.66	1.07	-1.11	0.36	0.3	-0.49	-0.42	-0.32	0	-0.13	-0.54	-0.23	-0.32	-0.54	-0.18	-1.03
23	0.03	0.67	0.58	0.44	0.08	0.14	-0.01	0.39	0.46	0.4	0.25	-0.65	-0.84	0.2	1.12	-0.56	0.49	0.02	0.11	0.19	0.43	0	-0.15	-0.24	-0.41	-0.03	-0.3	-0.34
24	0.48	-0.07	-0.08	0.28	-0.07	0.75	0.62	0.25	0.07	0.23	-0.2	-0.01	0.33	-0.79	0.18	0.26	0.42	0.47	0.04	0.42	0.83	0.05	0.3	0.51	0.41	0.47	0.62	0.28
25	-1.64	1.14	0.89	-1.07	0.13	-0.21	-0.36	-0.36	-0.13	-0.14	-0.53	0.14	0.26	-0.88	0.16	0.9	0.9	-0.4	0.04	0.32	0.1	0.25	-0.08	0.36	-0.32	-0.27	-0.07	-0.53
26	-1.63	1.76	-0.99	0.87	0.36	-0.08	0.54	0.42	0.38	-0.19	-0.13	0.06	0.46	-0.01	0.75	-1.43	-1.37	-0.91	-0.48	0.05	-0.3	-0.39	-0.43	0.03	-0.25	-0.21	-0.45	0.19

Dataset 5.Relative peripheral horizontal astigmatism J0.

The relative peripheral horizontal astigmatism J₀ was calculated for each participant with and without contact lenses.

	Baseline (no CL)														SVCL
	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35	T35	T30	T25	T20	T15	T10	T5	N5	N10	N15	N20	N25	N30	N35
1	-1.12	-1.02	-0.57	-0.23	-0.23	-0.26	-0.44	-0.43	-0.33	-0.11	-0.87	0.03	-0.71	-1.08	0.36	-0.96	-0.06	-0.29	-0.35	-0.35	-0.22	-0.23	-0.47	-0.5	-0.18	-0.58	0	0.01
2	0.13	-1.07	-0.93	-0.7	0.48	-0.01	0.05	-0.08	0.08	-0.12	-0.39	0.48	0.49	0.47	1.19	0.33	-0.2	-0.33	0.12	0.34	-0.4	-0.52	0.11	-0.77	-0.5	-0.13	-0.21	-0.33
3	-0.64	0.41	0.17	0.13	0.44	-0.25	0.42	0	0.39	0.55	0.23	-0.25	0.86	-0.68	-0.16	0.27	0.49	0.65	0.43	0.36	0.11	0.73	0.45	0.27	0.21	0.89	1.54	0
4	1.01	0.11	0.02	0.51	-0.21	0.1	-0.1	0.42	-0.02	-0.16	0.35	0.11	0.04	0.25	-1.32	0.24	-0.03	-0.23	-0.61	-0.72	-0.31	-0.12	-0.83	-0.6	-0.5	-0.68	0.23	-0.08
5	2.03	0.62	1.21	-0.46	0.55	0.11	0.12	0.56	0.28	-0.06	0.48	0.5	-0.27	-0.38	1.12	0.23	0.92	-0.15	0.63	0.32	0.41	0.17	0.17	-0.44	-0.17	0.28	0.78	0.25
6	0.36	0.27	0.55	0.45	0.23	-0.06	-0.19	-0.4	0.21	-0.29	-0.47	-0.21	-0.38	0.33	0.72	0.72	-0.69	0.38	-0.27	0.03	0.16	-0.18	0.19	0.05	0.29	0.21	-0.08	-0.02
7	0.01	0.38	0.36	-0.1	-0.18	-0.04	0.09	0.06	0.55	-0.62	-0.11	1	0.17	0.7	0.49	0.08	0.08	-0.05	-0.05	0.07	-0.07	0.09	0.24	0.24	-0.23	-0.31	-0.53	-0.66
8	-0.47	-0.08	0.65	0.55	-0.06	0.39	0.22	0.2	-0.13	-0.55	0.24	0.49	0.07	-0.15	-0.23	-0.18	0.17	0.09	-0.23	0.17	-0.11	-0.03	-0.24	0.61	-0.15	0.23	-0.96	-0.12
9	-1	0.47	-0.36	0.15	-0.07	0.04	0.19	0.75	0.8	0	0.02	0.37	0.4	-0.38	-0.24	-0.79	-0.98	-0.5	-0.95	-0.42	-1.15	-0.06	-0.98	-0.17	-0.68	-1.13	-0.85	-1.05
10	-0.5	0.69	-0.21	0.11	0.21	-0.2	0.08	-0.3	1.12	-0.22	0.35	-0.02	0.67	0.69	0.6	-0.13	0.36	0.28	0	-0.02	0.41	0.21	0.08	0.05	-0.04	0.35	-0.02	-0.17
11	1.9	1.35	1.05	0.18	0.62	0.02	-0.06	0.08	0.38	0.79	0.39	0.68	1.01	0.38	-0.76	-0.92	-0.01	-0.45	-0.31	0.12	-0.72	-0.31	-0.29	0.26	-0.73	0.26	-0.3	-0.38
12	0.48	0.07	-0.1	0.45	0.34	0.02	0.76	0.81	-0.13	0.23	0.45	0.63	0.11	-0.22	0.23	-0.38	-1.18	-0.68	-0.76	-0.86	-0.11	-0.69	-0.45	-0.78	0.32	-0.75	0.21	-0.53
13	1.29	-0.01	1.18	-0.13	0.6	0.27	0.37	0.15	0.13	0.22	0.17	0.3	0.47	0.56	-0.43	-1.35	0.01	-0.69	-0.48	-0.06	0.13	-0.13	-0.07	-0.01	0.45	0.12	-0.27	-0.2
14	-1.36	-0.76	-0.89	-0.22	-0.13	-0.3	-0.28	-0.33	-0.45	-0.59	-0.69	-0.29	-0.08	-0.92	-0.7	1.39	-0.21	-0.28	0.78	0.24	0.12	0.13	0.19	0.52	0.38	0.81	0.75	0.62
15	-0.3	-0.07	0.16	-0.15	-0.14	0.18	0.18	-0.25	-0.14	0.06	0.6	0.25	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.31	0.29	0.29	-0.18	-0.27	0.17	0.27	-0.01	-0.13	0.64	-0.13	0.23	0.33
16	1.67	-0.93	-0.54	-0.56	-0.19	0.39	0.23	-0.22	0.28	0.2	0.2	-0.14	0.49	-0.65	-1.21	-0.58	-0.93	-0.19	0.03	-0.07	0.21	-0.25	0.23	-0.17	-0.81	0.21	-0.24	-0.49
17	0.1	-0.91	-0.88	0.16	-0.22	-0.26	-0.46	-0.4	0.28	0.04	0.58	-0.59	0.56	-0.59	0.99	1.43	-0.01	0.92	0.08	0.13	0.25	0.65	0.38	0.44	0.18	0.78	0.4	0.08
18	0.02	0.06	-0.1	-0.33	-0.16	-0.17	0.21	-0.27	-0.51	-0.04	-0.24	-0.3	-0.5	-0.25	0.13	0.51	0.36	0.36	0.44	0.18	0.42	0.11	0.74	0.14	-0.36	0.06	0.5	0.41
19	0.99	0.27	-1.04	0.27	-0.31	0	-0.05	0.18	0.1	-0.03	0.28	-0.42	-0.35	0.7	0.37	0.9	-0.28	-0.3	0.01	-0.04	0.13	0.36	0.05	-0.16	-0.23	0.31	0.19	-0.42
20	1.42	0.77	-1.42	0.24	-0.62	-0.27	-0.04	-0.22	-0.46	0	-0.25	-0.42	0.15	-0.53	-1.77	0.69	-1.12	0.27	0.36	-0.09	0.33	-0.16	0.19	-0.15	-0.01	-0.12	-0.05	-0.16
21	-0.22	-0.39	-0.49	0.61	-0.01	0.12	-0.19	0.07	-0.17	-0.09	0.49	-0.2	-0.07	0.99	-0.37	1.04	0.93	0.2	0.67	-0.1	0.37	0.03	0.18	0.59	0.35	0.21	0.83	0.93
22	-0.77	-0.28	-0.35	0.13	0.02	-0.06	-0.08	-0.43	0.13	-0.43	-0.45	-0.77	0.58	0.13	0.45	0.84	0.33	0.22	0	0.29	0	0.45	-0.01	0.52	0.29	-0.22	0.01	0.68
23	-1.56	-1.12	-0.95	0.09	-0.3	-0.13	-0.33	-0.1	-0.42	0.22	-0.62	0.03	0.07	0.74	-0.17	-1	-0.36	0	-0.31	-0.42	-0.2	-0.25	-0.45	-0.2	-0.4	-0.62	-0.19	-0.7
24	-0.2	-0.22	-0.6	-0.62	-0.28	-0.59	-0.41	-0.88	-0.49	-0.08	-0.35	-0.73	0.21	-0.31	0.2	0.43	0.61	0.3	0.3	0.67	0.73	0.03	-0.1	0.05	0.41	-0.26	-0.43	-0.36
25	1.38	0.21	0.19	0.81	-0.01	-0.17	0.1	0.1	0.19	-0.28	-0.37	0.48	-0.51	-0.6	1.28	-0.34	0.4	0.59	-0.4	0.18	0.16	0.17	0.19	-0.38	0.49	0.45	-0.31	0.23
26	-0.04	-0.78	-0.36	1.72	1.51	0.69	0	0.03	0.2	0.15	0.42	-0.17	-0.3	0.51	-1.03	-0.42	-0.4	-0.48	0.44	-0.08	0.31	-0.21	0	-0.25	0	0.05	-0.15	-0.23

Dataset 6.Relative peripheral oblique astigmatism J45 w.

The relative peripheral oblique astigmatism J₄₅ was calculated for each participant with and without contact lenses.

Discussion

With the extensive range of powers and materials of single vision soft contact lenses available, these lenses have become one of the most popular myopia correction modes widely used by young adults. In this study, we evaluated the relative peripheral refractive error along the horizontal meridian. The myopic children who participated in this research were found to have relative hyperopic defocus in the peripheral retina. However, full central myopia correction with using SVCL was found to cause a greater relative hyperopic shift at all eccentricity along the horizontal meridian compared with baseline (WL). The results are in agreement with a study by Kang et al. (2012)¹³ who found an increase of relative hyperopic defocus for young adult wearing Proclear soft contact lenses when compared with the peripheral refraction measurement of the eye without correction.

Few studies have attempted to observe myopia progression when SVCL are used for full correction. In the early 1970s, several studies reported an increase of myopia progression rate with soft contact lens wearers^15,16. However, a recent study found a decrease of progression rate¹⁷, while Andreo (1990)¹⁸ reported no difference between daily soft contact lens wearers and spectacles wearers in myopia progression after one year of study. A three year randomized clinical study reported no difference in myopia progression between SVCL and spectacle lens wearers among children aged between 11 and 14 years old¹⁹. Moreover, Walline et al. (2008)²⁰ conducted a study of 247 soft contact lens and 237 spectacles wearers aged between 8 and 11 years. The study confirmed that SVCL has no significant effect on axial length or corneal curvature progress compared with spectacles group.

Fulk et al. (2003)²¹ found in a 1-year study a three times higher rate of myopia progression (-0.75D/year) in children who chose to switch from spectacle lens to SVCL compared with children who continued to wear spectacles who had average myopia progression (-0.23D/year). Moreover, a recent non randomized longitudinal study over 2 years reported a statistically significant but clinically not significant increase in myopia progression for children who chose to switch from spectacles to soft contact lenses -0.52±0.46 D compared with children remained on wearing spectacle lens -0.25±0.39 D²². This higher rate of progression found with SVCL wearers is in agreement with our findings of an increased relative peripheral retinal hyperopic defocus when using SVCL compare with baseline (without contact lens). Taking results of these studies together, we expect that when children wear the SVCL for prolonged periods of time the induced higher relative hyperopic defocus will speed up the progression of myopia.

It is believed that hyperopic defocus in the peripheral retina stimulates myopia progression and axial elongation²³. Wagner et al. (2013)²⁴ demonstrated the optical profile power measurement from central to peripheral retina for six popular single vision commercial soft contact lenses. They found that most of the standard single vision soft contact lenses for myopes have more minus power toward the periphery zone. Therefore, prescribing contact lenses which increase the minus power at the periphery would explain the results of previous studies which showed an increase of myopia progression in SVCL wearers compared with spectacle lens wearers. This might also explain the increase of relative peripheral hyperopic refraction in myopic children we observed in this study compared with the baseline (without correction), which could be due to the increase of minus power at the periphery of the ‘2 week pure’ single vision soft contact lens.

A recent study by Blacker et al. (2009)²⁵ in the United States compared the progression of myopia in children wearing single vision soft contact lenses of two different material groups. The study reported progression of myopia +0.02 D for those who used silicon hydrogel lenses compared with -0.41 D for low Dk/t for those wearing hydrogel contact lenses over 3 years. However, the study was non-randomized and the sample size was not matched between the groups where there were 54 patients wearing hydrogel and 230 patients wearing silicon hydrogel contact lenses, and the aged group was 38±11 years for silicone hydrogel contact lens wearers compared with 23±12 years for Low Dk/t contact lens wearers. A previous randomized study on 92 adult subjects reported myopia progression by +0.18±0.33D in silicone hydrogel group compared with a -0.23±0.36D low Dk/t hydrogel group after 6 months extended wear²⁶. The authors hypothesized that pressure related to contact lens wearing has a direct impact on the redistribution of corneal tissue when using high Dk/t silicone hydrogel soft contact lenses. Moreover, low Dk/t hydrogel material could lead to hypoxia-associated corneal thinning which could temporarily influence the results. In this research we used hydrogel single vision contact lens made of zwitterionic material SIB and high water content.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that wearing single vision soft contact lenses increases the relative peripheral hyperopic defocus in myopic schoolchildren. Although the higher values found in SVCL compared with naked eye were statistically and clinically not significant, it is possible that wearing soft contact lenses at childhood age for a prolonged period might speed up the progression rate of myopia. However, a longitudinal study using ‘2 week Pure’ single vision contact lens from SEED^® is needed to evaluate the impact of wearing this contact lens on myopia progression in children.

Data availability

F1000Research: Dataset 1. Spherical equivalent refractive error M, 10.5256/f1000research.10080.d143978²⁷

F1000Research: Dataset 2. Horizontal astigmatism components J₀, 10.5256/f1000research.10080.d143979²⁸

F1000Research: Dataset 3. Oblique astigmatism components J₄₅, 10.5256/f1000research.10080.d143980²⁹

F1000Research: Dataset 4. Relative peripheral refractive error M, 10.5256/f1000research.10080.d143981³⁰

F1000Research: Dataset 5. Relative peripheral horizontal astigmatism J₀, 10.5256/f1000research.10080.d143982³¹

F1000Research: Dataset 6. Relative peripheral oblique astigmatism J₄₅ w, 10.5256/f1000research.10080.d143983³²

Author contributions

SK = designed the experiment and conceived the study. HAM: Data analysis.

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This study was supported by a grant (to SK) from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (DPK-2014-002).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank SEED Co. Japan for supplying the contact lenses and solutions used in this study.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Pan CW, Ramamurthy D, Saw SM: Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012; 32(1): 3–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Mutti DO, Sholtz RI, Friedman NE, et al.: Peripheral refraction and ocular shape in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41(5): 1022–1030. PubMed Abstract
3. Atchison DA, Jones CE, Schmid KL, et al.: Eye shape in emmetropia and myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45(10): 3380–3386. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Atchison DA, Pritchard N, Schmid KL, et al.: Shape of the retinal surface in emmetropia and myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46(8): 2698–2707. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Liesegang TJ: Contact lens-related microbial keratitis: Part I: Epidemiology. Cornea. 1997; 16(2): 125–31. PubMed Abstract
6. Smith EL 3rd, Kee CS, Ramamirtham R, et al.: Peripheral vision can influence eye growth and refractive development in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46(11): 3965–3972. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Smith EL 3rd, Ramamirtham R, Qiao-Grider Y, et al.: Effects of foveal ablation on emmetropization and form-deprivation myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48(9): 3914–3922. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF, Huang J: Relative peripheral hyperopic defocus alters central refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res. 2009; 49(19): 2386–2392. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Hoogerheide J, Rempt F, Hoogenboom WP: Acquired myopia in young pilots. Ophthalmologica. 1971; 163(4): 209–215. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Schmid GF: Association between retinal steepness and central myopic shift in children. Optom Vis Sci. 2011; 88(6): 684–690. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Lin Z, Martinez A, Chen X, et al.: Peripheral defocus with single-vision spectacle lenses in myopic children. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87(1): 4–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Shen J, Clark CA, Soni PS, et al.: Peripheral refraction with and without contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87(9): 642–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Kang P, Fan Y, Oh K, et al.: Effect of single vision soft contact lenses on peripheral refraction. Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89(7): 1014–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D: Power vectors: An application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997; 74(6): 367–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Harris MG, Sarver MD, Polse KA: Corneal curvature and refractive error changes associated with wearing hydrogel contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1975; 52(5): 313–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Barnett WA, Rengstorff RH: Adaptation to hydrogel contact lenses: variations in myopia and corneal curvature measurements. J Am Optom Assoc. 1977; 48(3): 363–6. PubMed Abstract
17. Lazon de la Jara P, Sankaridurg P, Ho A, et al.: A silicone hydrogel contact lens produced less myopia progression than single vision spectacles in Chinese children over a 6-month period. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51(13): E-Abstract 2198. Reference Source
18. Andreo LK: Long-term effects of hydrophilic contact lenses on myopia. Ann Ophthalmol. 1990; 22(6): 224–7, 229.PubMed Abstract
19. Horner DG, Soni PS, Salmon TO, et al.: Myopia progression in adolescent wearers of soft contact lenses and spectacles. Optom Vis Sci. 1999; 76(7): 474–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. 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(11): 4702–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE, et al.: The effect of changing from glasses to soft contact lenses on myopia progression in adolescents. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23(1): 71–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Marsh-Tootle WL, Dong LM, Hyman L, et al.: Myopia Progression in Children Wearing Spectacles vs. Switching to Contact Lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86(6): 741–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF: The role of optical defocus in regulating refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res. 1999; 39(8): 1415–1435. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Wagner S: Power profiles of single vision soft contact lenses. Poster 52, British Contact Lens Association Conference 6–9 June 2013; Manchester, UK.
25. Blacker A, Mitchell GL, Bullimore MA, et al.: Myopia progression during three years of soft contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86(10): 1150–1153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Jalbert I, Strotton S, Naduvilath T, et al.: Changes in myopia with low-Dk hydrogel and high-Dk silicone hydrogel extended wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81(8): 591–596. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 1 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source
28. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 2 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source
29. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 3 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source
30. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 4 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source
31. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 5 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source
32. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 6 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Nov 2016

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Health Science, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, 50300, Malaysia

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This study was supported by a grant (to SK) from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (DPK-2014-002).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 30 Nov 2016, 5:2803

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10080.1

Copyright

© 2016 Allinjawi K et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Allinjawi K, Sharanjeet-Kaur SK, Akhir SM and Abdul Mutalib H. The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2016, 5:2803 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10080.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 30 Nov 2016

Views

7

Reviewer Report 15 May 2017

Pauline Kang, School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.10861.r21458

This study evaluated changes in peripheral refraction induced by ‘2 week pure’ soft contact lenses in a group of children. There are issues which need to be addressed as described below:

General comments:

Why ... Continue reading

This study evaluated changes in peripheral refraction induced by ‘2 week pure’ soft contact lenses in a group of children. There are issues which need to be addressed as described below:

General comments:

Why do authors expect there to be a difference in peripheral refraction changes to published reports on adults, if peripheral refraction has been shown to be relatively similar between myopic children and adults?

Furthermore, these results cannot be generalised to all contact lenses and is specific for the included lens design.

If results are not statistically significant, authors should not state that SVCLs increased relative hyperopic defocus.

The discussion details many studies exploring differences in myopia progression between SVCLs, spectacles, and between different materials of SVCLs. Instead, authors should compare peripheral refraction profiles to previous publications in children.

Limitations of instrumentation has not been discussed – authors only measured peripheral refraction along the horizontal meridian and it has been shown that the vertical meridian tends to demonstrate myopic defocus in myopic individuals. Furthermore, the autorefractor samples within a small arc which may mask subtle changes, which may be a possible reason for non-significant changes reported in this study.

Authors need to be careful in statements regarding peripheral vision/refraction and myopia/emmetropization as these are hypotheses or proposals that have not been fully validated.

Minor comments:

Abstract:

Conclusion: Results are not statistically significant therefore authors should not state that SVCLs increased relative hyperopic defocus.

Introduction - first paragraph:

Why is myopia considered a global health problem?
Prolate, not prolated
Replace affordable with a more appropriate word

Introduction – second paragraph:

There have been numerous studies have characterised changes in peripheral vision or defocus with various single vision and multifocal soft contact lenses.
Peripheral hyperopic defocus is believed to cause axial length elongation
More recent evidence has suggested that peripheral hyperopic defocus may be a consequence rather than cause of myopia development.

Methods:

Were p values adjusted to take into account multiple comparisons?
How long were contact lenses worn before measurements were taken?
Did authors note any decentration in their subjects, as this may influence results

Results – first paragraph:

Remove the last sentence

Figure keys:

baseline, not base

Table 1, 2 and Figure 1:

I am surprised with such low J₀ values in the periphery?

Discussion – first paragraph :

the results were not statistically significant, therefore authors should not state that the contact lenses induced any changes in relative peripheral refraction.

Fourth paragraph:

this is true if peripheral defocus is to some extent responsible or involved in myopia development. This is currently still under debate.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

14

Reviewer Report 08 Feb 2017

Li-Fang Hung, College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.10861.r20014

I would suggest the authors change the topic and revise the conclusion (in text and abstract) of the manuscript. Due to the differences of contact lens power profiles made by different contact lenses manufacturers, the peripheral refractions would

I would suggest the authors change the topic and revise the conclusion (in text and abstract) of the manuscript. Due to the differences of contact lens power profiles made by different contact lenses manufacturers, the peripheral refractions would be influenced when the subjects wear SVCLs made by different manufacturers. This study only use one particular brand of contact lenses, hence, cannot conclude that all the SVCLs would have the same impact on the peripheral refraction.
First line of the second paragraph in the introduction: Although contact lens focus on correcting the central vision, the peripheral image, in most of the conditions, will still be improved, just not so accurate (or adequate) as that of central vision. Please revise the sentence.
Last sentence in the introduction: Currently, there are more published studies that evaluate the SVCL wearing on the retinal profile in myopic children now. Please revise the last sentence and add references.
For the statistical analysis: When comparing different eccentricities, it involved multiple comparison problem. It is prefer to use multiple comparison corrections.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Nov 2016

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 30 Nov 16	read	read

Li-Fang Hung, University of Houston, Houston, USA
Pauline Kang, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

15 May 2017 | for Version 1

Pauline Kang, School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

This study evaluated changes in peripheral refraction induced by ‘2 week pure’ soft contact lenses in a group of children. There are issues which need to be addressed as described below:

General comments:

Why do authors expect there to be a difference in peripheral refraction changes to published reports on adults, if peripheral refraction has been shown to be relatively similar between myopic children and adults?

Furthermore, these results cannot be generalised to all contact lenses and is specific for the included lens design.

If results are not statistically significant, authors should not state that SVCLs increased relative hyperopic defocus.

The discussion details many studies exploring differences in myopia progression between SVCLs, spectacles, and between different materials of SVCLs. Instead, authors should compare peripheral refraction profiles to previous publications in children.

Limitations of instrumentation has not been discussed – authors only measured peripheral refraction along the horizontal meridian and it has been shown that the vertical meridian tends to demonstrate myopic defocus in myopic individuals. Furthermore, the autorefractor samples within a small arc which may mask subtle changes, which may be a possible reason for non-significant changes reported in this study.

Authors need to be careful in statements regarding peripheral vision/refraction and myopia/emmetropization as these are hypotheses or proposals that have not been fully validated.

Minor comments:

Abstract:

Conclusion: Results are not statistically significant therefore authors should not state that SVCLs increased relative hyperopic defocus.

Introduction - first paragraph:

Why is myopia considered a global health problem?
Prolate, not prolated
Replace affordable with a more appropriate word

Introduction – second paragraph:

There have been numerous studies have characterised changes in peripheral vision or defocus with various single vision and multifocal soft contact lenses.
Peripheral hyperopic defocus is believed to cause axial length elongation
More recent evidence has suggested that peripheral hyperopic defocus may be a consequence rather than cause of myopia development.

Methods:

Were p values adjusted to take into account multiple comparisons?
How long were contact lenses worn before measurements were taken?
Did authors note any decentration in their subjects, as this may influence results

Results – first paragraph:

Remove the last sentence

Figure keys:

baseline, not base

Table 1, 2 and Figure 1:

I am surprised with such low J₀ values in the periphery?

Discussion – first paragraph :

the results were not statistically significant, therefore authors should not state that the contact lenses induced any changes in relative peripheral refraction.

Fourth paragraph:

this is true if peripheral defocus is to some extent responsible or involved in myopia development. This is currently still under debate.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

08 Feb 2017 | for Version 1

Li-Fang Hung, College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

14 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

I would suggest the authors change the topic and revise the conclusion (in text and abstract) of the manuscript. Due to the differences of contact lens power profiles made by different contact lenses manufacturers, the peripheral refractions would be influenced when the subjects wear SVCLs made by different manufacturers. This study only use one particular brand of contact lenses, hence, cannot conclude that all the SVCLs would have the same impact on the peripheral refraction.
First line of the second paragraph in the introduction: Although contact lens focus on correcting the central vision, the peripheral image, in most of the conditions, will still be improved, just not so accurate (or adequate) as that of central vision. Please revise the sentence.
Last sentence in the introduction: Currently, there are more published studies that evaluate the SVCL wearing on the retinal profile in myopic children now. Please revise the last sentence and add references.
For the statistical analysis: When comparing different eccentricities, it involved multiple comparison problem. It is prefer to use multiple comparison corrections.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Pan CW, Ramamurthy D, Saw SM: Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012; 32(1): 3–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Mutti DO, Sholtz RI, Friedman NE, et al.: Peripheral refraction and ocular shape in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41(5): 1022–1030. PubMed Abstract

[3] 3. Atchison DA, Jones CE, Schmid KL, et al.: Eye shape in emmetropia and myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45(10): 3380–3386. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Atchison DA, Pritchard N, Schmid KL, et al.: Shape of the retinal surface in emmetropia and myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46(8): 2698–2707. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Liesegang TJ: Contact lens-related microbial keratitis: Part I: Epidemiology. Cornea. 1997; 16(2): 125–31. PubMed Abstract

[6] 6. Smith EL 3rd, Kee CS, Ramamirtham R, et al.: Peripheral vision can influence eye growth and refractive development in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46(11): 3965–3972. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Smith EL 3rd, Ramamirtham R, Qiao-Grider Y, et al.: Effects of foveal ablation on emmetropization and form-deprivation myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48(9): 3914–3922. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF, Huang J: Relative peripheral hyperopic defocus alters central refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res. 2009; 49(19): 2386–2392. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Hoogerheide J, Rempt F, Hoogenboom WP: Acquired myopia in young pilots. Ophthalmologica. 1971; 163(4): 209–215. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Schmid GF: Association between retinal steepness and central myopic shift in children. Optom Vis Sci. 2011; 88(6): 684–690. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Lin Z, Martinez A, Chen X, et al.: Peripheral defocus with single-vision spectacle lenses in myopic children. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87(1): 4–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Shen J, Clark CA, Soni PS, et al.: Peripheral refraction with and without contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87(9): 642–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Kang P, Fan Y, Oh K, et al.: Effect of single vision soft contact lenses on peripheral refraction. Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89(7): 1014–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D: Power vectors: An application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997; 74(6): 367–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Harris MG, Sarver MD, Polse KA: Corneal curvature and refractive error changes associated with wearing hydrogel contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1975; 52(5): 313–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Barnett WA, Rengstorff RH: Adaptation to hydrogel contact lenses: variations in myopia and corneal curvature measurements. J Am Optom Assoc. 1977; 48(3): 363–6. PubMed Abstract

[17] 17. Lazon de la Jara P, Sankaridurg P, Ho A, et al.: A silicone hydrogel contact lens produced less myopia progression than single vision spectacles in Chinese children over a 6-month period. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51(13): E-Abstract 2198. Reference Source

[18] 18. Andreo LK: Long-term effects of hydrophilic contact lenses on myopia. Ann Ophthalmol. 1990; 22(6): 224–7, 229.PubMed Abstract

[19] 19. Horner DG, Soni PS, Salmon TO, et al.: Myopia progression in adolescent wearers of soft contact lenses and spectacles. Optom Vis Sci. 1999; 76(7): 474–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. 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(11): 4702–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE, et al.: The effect of changing from glasses to soft contact lenses on myopia progression in adolescents. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23(1): 71–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Marsh-Tootle WL, Dong LM, Hyman L, et al.: Myopia Progression in Children Wearing Spectacles vs. Switching to Contact Lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86(6): 741–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF: The role of optical defocus in regulating refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res. 1999; 39(8): 1415–1435. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Wagner S: Power profiles of single vision soft contact lenses. Poster 52, British Contact Lens Association Conference 6–9 June 2013; Manchester, UK.

[25] 25. Blacker A, Mitchell GL, Bullimore MA, et al.: Myopia progression during three years of soft contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86(10): 1150–1153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Jalbert I, Strotton S, Naduvilath T, et al.: Changes in myopia with low-Dk hydrogel and high-Dk silicone hydrogel extended wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81(8): 591–596. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 1 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

[28] 28. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 2 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

[29] 29. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 3 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

[30] 30. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 4 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

[31] 31. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 5 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

[32] 32. Allinjawi K, Kaur S, Akhir SM, et al.: Dataset 6 in: The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

The impact of wearing single vision soft contact lenses on the peripheral refractive error

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Contact lens design and materials

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 1. Mean spherical equivalent (M ± SD), horizontal astigmatism component (J0 ± SD) and oblique astigmatism component (J45 ± SD) for 27 eyes at different eccentricities without lens, and with using SVCL.

Table 2. Relative peripheral refractive error as mean spherical equivalent values (M±SD), horizontal astigmatism component (J0 ± SD) and oblique astigmatism component (J45 ± SD) for 27 eyes at baseline and with using SVCL.

Figure 1. The relative peripheral refractive error for baseline (without contact lens) and with using single vision contact lens.

Discussion

Conclusions

Data availability

Author contributions

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Table 1. Mean spherical equivalent (M ± SD), horizontal astigmatism component (J₀ ± SD) and oblique astigmatism component (J₄₅ ± SD) for 27 eyes at different eccentricities without lens, and with using SVCL.

Table 2. Relative peripheral refractive error as mean spherical equivalent values (M±SD), horizontal astigmatism component (J₀ ± SD) and oblique astigmatism component (J₄₅ ± SD) for 27 eyes at baseline and with using SVCL.