International trends in daily disposable contact lens prescribing (2000–2023): An update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Daily disposable contact lenses offer numerous benefits in terms of ocular health and wearer convenience. The purpose of this work is to update earlier surveys by describing global trends in daily disposable lens fitting between 2000 and 2023. METHOD: An annual contact lens prescribing survey was sent to eye care practitioners in up to 71 countries between 2000 and 2023, inclusive. Data relating to 265,106 daily wear soft lens fits undertaken in 20 countries returning reliable longitudinal data were analysed in respect of daily disposable lens fitting. RESULTS: Overall, daily disposable lens prescribing increased over time, from 17.1 % of daily wear soft lens fits in 2000 to 46.7 % in 2023 (p < 0.0001). There were significant differences between countries in daily disposable lens prescribing (p < 0.0001), and between the percentage of males fitted with daily disposable lenses, as a proportion of all daily wear soft lenses (37.2 %), compared to females (35.2 %) (p < 0.0001). Daily disposable lens wearers are slightly younger at fitting than reusable soft lens wearers (31.0 vs 31.2 years, respectively) (p < 0.0001), although this difference is not clinically meaningful. Analysis of 50,240 daily wear soft lenses fitted recently (2019-2023) were found to be prescribed for the following replacement frequencies: daily - 47 %; monthly - 42 %; 1-2 weekly - 9 %; and ≥3 monthly - 2 %. CONCLUSION: There has been a substantial increase in daily disposable lens fitting throughout the first 24 years of this century. The gradual nature of this increase is commensurate with the staged introduction of daily disposable lens designs and expanded parameter ranges over the survey period.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".