Cargando…
Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle
(1) Background: Eye drops are the most common route of administration for ophthalmic medications. Administering drops can be a major hurdle for patients, potentially resulting in noncompliance and treatment failure. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of two different aid...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8658337/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34884360 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235658 |
_version_ | 1784612708095623168 |
---|---|
author | Brand, Gali Hecht, Idan Burgansky-Eliash, Zvia Naftali Ben Haim, Liron Leadbetter, Duncan Spierer, Oriel Achiron, Asaf |
author_facet | Brand, Gali Hecht, Idan Burgansky-Eliash, Zvia Naftali Ben Haim, Liron Leadbetter, Duncan Spierer, Oriel Achiron, Asaf |
author_sort | Brand, Gali |
collection | PubMed |
description | (1) Background: Eye drops are the most common route of administration for ophthalmic medications. Administering drops can be a major hurdle for patients, potentially resulting in noncompliance and treatment failure. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of two different aids and the conventional bottle for eye drop instillation; (2) Methods: An interventional crossover study involving standard eye drop bottle, Opticare aid and Autodrop aid. The study included healthy subjects without a history of regular eye drop use; (3) Results: Twenty-six subjects were enrolled. Of those subjects, 96% and 92% were able to assemble the eye drop bottle into the Autodrop and the Opticare aids, respectively. Subjective assessment indicated that Autodrop was significantly easier to assemble than Opticare (95% CI: −1.6802 to −0.1659, p = 0.02). When using either aid, there was no contamination of the bottle tip, which occurred in 46% of subjects when no aid was used (p = 0.0005). Fewer drops were expelled when using the conventional bottle as compared to the aids (p = 0.05 compared to Autodrop, p = 0.1 compared to Opticare); (4) Conclusions: Autodrop and Opticare can assist patients with eye drop placement. These aids completely prevented bottle tip contamination, which was frequently observed when the conventional bottle was used alone. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8658337 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86583372021-12-10 Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle Brand, Gali Hecht, Idan Burgansky-Eliash, Zvia Naftali Ben Haim, Liron Leadbetter, Duncan Spierer, Oriel Achiron, Asaf J Clin Med Article (1) Background: Eye drops are the most common route of administration for ophthalmic medications. Administering drops can be a major hurdle for patients, potentially resulting in noncompliance and treatment failure. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of two different aids and the conventional bottle for eye drop instillation; (2) Methods: An interventional crossover study involving standard eye drop bottle, Opticare aid and Autodrop aid. The study included healthy subjects without a history of regular eye drop use; (3) Results: Twenty-six subjects were enrolled. Of those subjects, 96% and 92% were able to assemble the eye drop bottle into the Autodrop and the Opticare aids, respectively. Subjective assessment indicated that Autodrop was significantly easier to assemble than Opticare (95% CI: −1.6802 to −0.1659, p = 0.02). When using either aid, there was no contamination of the bottle tip, which occurred in 46% of subjects when no aid was used (p = 0.0005). Fewer drops were expelled when using the conventional bottle as compared to the aids (p = 0.05 compared to Autodrop, p = 0.1 compared to Opticare); (4) Conclusions: Autodrop and Opticare can assist patients with eye drop placement. These aids completely prevented bottle tip contamination, which was frequently observed when the conventional bottle was used alone. MDPI 2021-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8658337/ /pubmed/34884360 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235658 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Brand, Gali Hecht, Idan Burgansky-Eliash, Zvia Naftali Ben Haim, Liron Leadbetter, Duncan Spierer, Oriel Achiron, Asaf Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle |
title | Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle |
title_full | Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle |
title_short | Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle |
title_sort | comparison of the usability of eye drop aids and the conventional bottle |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8658337/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34884360 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235658 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brandgali comparisonoftheusabilityofeyedropaidsandtheconventionalbottle AT hechtidan comparisonoftheusabilityofeyedropaidsandtheconventionalbottle AT burganskyeliashzvia comparisonoftheusabilityofeyedropaidsandtheconventionalbottle AT naftalibenhaimliron comparisonoftheusabilityofeyedropaidsandtheconventionalbottle AT leadbetterduncan comparisonoftheusabilityofeyedropaidsandtheconventionalbottle AT spiereroriel comparisonoftheusabilityofeyedropaidsandtheconventionalbottle AT achironasaf comparisonoftheusabilityofeyedropaidsandtheconventionalbottle |