Scleral Lenses for Managing Dry Eye Disease in the Absence of Corneal Irregularities: What Is the Current Evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scleral lenses (SLs) are large-diameter rigid contact lenses that are a mainstay treatment for eyes with corneal irregularities. In recent years, there has been increased interest in the role of managing dry eye disease (DED) with SLs, as many patients with DED have reported symptomatic relief with SL wear. The role of SLs for DED management when there are associated corneal irregularities is supported by individual case reports and studies. This has prompted practitioners to begin advocating using SLs in DED cases, even in the absence of associated corneal irregularities and other ocular surface diseases (OSDs). There have also been discussions on potentially placing SLs earlier in the treatment hierarchy of DED, where it currently sits at a more advanced level of intervention (Step 3) in the TFOS DEWS II Report. This review will present the currently available, albeit sparse, evidence that supports and suggests this practice, as well as ancillary evidence supporting the purported benefits of SL wear in DED. The advantages of SL wear, such as corneal healing, absence of tear evaporation and contact lens dehydration, and improved visual acuity with associated increased wear comfort, and how this will benefit DED patients will be explored. Conversely, the challenges associated with fitting SLs in DED patients, including increased midday fogging, poor wettability, and subjective patient satisfaction, will also be presented, as well as a discussion on the key considerations for SL fitting in this population. Overall, while more research is needed to support the use of SLs in DED patients without associated corneal irregularities and other forms of OSD, the use of these lenses may prove to have a potentially wider role given their reported ancillary benefits in these populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".