English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

(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.

Comparison of the Usability of Eye Drop Aids and the Conventional Bottle