Visual Acuity
Conditions
Brief summary
This clinical study will investigate the difference in ocular characteristics between contact lens wear and spectacle wear among habitual contact lens wearers, using a 2-treatment by 2-period cross-over design. There will be a 1-week washout between the two study periods to eliminate any potential carryover effect.
Interventions
DEVICESpectacles
Subjects' own habitual spectacles
DEVICEACUVUE OASYS®1-Day with HydraLuxe™ Technology
Test 1
Sponsors
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 42 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Potential subjects must satisfy all of the following criteria to be enrolled in the study: 1. The subject will have completed the pre-screening Classification questionnaire. 2. Subject must have a working cell phone capable of sending and receiving text messages. 3. The subject must read, understand, and sign the STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT and receive a fully executed copy of the form. 4. Appear able and willing to adhere to the instructions set forth in this clinical protocol. 5. Between 18 and 42 (inclusive) years of age at the time of screening 6. Be a current soft contact lens wearer in both eyes with a minimum of 5 days/week wear time over the last 1 month by self-report OR be a full-time spectacle wearer (7 days/ week) without contact lens wear over the last 6 months. 7. Subjects must be willing to adhere to spectacle-only refractive correction for approximately 1 week. 8. Subjects must possess a functional / usable pair of spectacles with which they can achieve 20/20 Snellen visual acuity or better at distance and near, and bring them to the visit 9. The subject's vertex corrected spherical distance refraction must be in the range (+/-0.25 D) of -2.00 D to -6.00 D (inclusive) in each eye. 10. The subject's vertex corrected refractive cylinder must be equal or less than -0.75 diopters in each eye. 11. Contact lens wearers must have spherical best corrected visual acuity of 20/25 or better in each eye. 12. Snellen visual acuity at distance and near must be within 1 line between subject's own spectacle and the manifest refraction, distance and near, OD & OS.
Exclusion criteria
* Potential subjects who meet any of the following criteria will be excluded from participating in the study: 1. Currently pregnant or lactating, by self-report 2. Any ocular or systemic allergies, disease or use of medication which may interfere with contact lens wear and/or participation in the study (at the discretion of the investigator). 3. Any active ocular abnormalities/conditions that may interfere with contact lens wear and/or participation in the study (at the discretion of the investigator). 4. Any corneal distortion resulting from previous hard or rigid gas permeable contact lens wear 5. Habitual contact lens wear modality as extended wear (≥1 night per month of extended wear). 6. Habitual contact lens is rigid gas permeable, toric, monovision or multi-focal 7. Habitual spectacle contains an add power, photochromic or tint. 8. Any previous, or planned (during the course of the study) ocular surgery (e.g., radial keratotomy, PRK, LASIK, etc.) 9. Participation in any contact lens or lens care product clinical trial within 2 weeks prior to study enrollment. 10. Employee or employee's immediate family member of clinical site (e.g., Investigator, Coordinator, Technician) 11. Current habitual use of Restasis, Xiidra, ocular steroids, or any medication (RX or OTC) that may interfere with contact lens wear and/or participation in the study (at the discretion of the investigator) 12. Any ocular allergies, infections or other ocular abnormalities that are known to interfere with contact lens wear and/or participation in the study. This may include, but not be limited to entropion, ectropion, extrusions, chalazia, recurrent styes, glaucoma, history of recurrent corneal erosions, aphakia, or corneal distortion. 13. Any Grade 3 or greater biomicroscopy findings (this includes, corneal edema, corneal staining, corneal vascularization, conjunctival injection, tarsal abnormalities, bulbar injection) on the FDA classification scale (CTP-2018). 14. Accommodative/binocular dysfunction, determined by study procedures.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Invasive Break Up Time (NIBUT) or Non-Invasive Keratograph Break Up Time (NIKBUT) | 1-Week Follow-up | NIBUT/NIKBUT was measured as the time interval in seconds after the final blink to the first appearance of distortion in the reflected rings; or to the time that the participant has to blink due to discomfort. NIBUT is measured by a topographer (e.g. Medmont) via observation by the investigator and a stopwatch. NIKBUTis measured by the Oculus Keratograph and reported by the instrument. Different instrumentation was used depending on site availability. Combined measurements of pre-lens data collected for the interventional arm are reported. Only the interventional arm was reported since the primary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users. The average NIKBUT was reported for each treatment. Higher values indicate better performance |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Total Scores of Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) | 1-Week Follow-up | Meibomian gland expressiblity was assessed in three regions of the lower eyelid: temporal, central, and nasal. Each region is expressed and the overall grade of the region is evaluated using a four-grade scale: 0 = No Secretion, 1 = Inspissated, 2 = Colored/Cloudy Liquid, and 3 = Clear Liquid Oil. The total score was calculated as the sum of all grades across the three regions and ranged from 0 (no secretion) to 9, with higher scores indicating more MGE. Total scores were converted into a binary variable for the analysis purpose where Y=1 if the total score is greater than 6 and 0 otherwise. The percentage of participants with MGE total score greater than 6 was estimated. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users. |
| Conjunctival Staining | 1-Week Follow-up | Conjunctival staining was graded and recorded by quadrant (Superior, Inferior, Nasal, and Temporal) using the following grading scale: Grade 0 = None, Grade 1 = Trace, Grade 2 = Mild, Grade 3 = Moderate, and Grade 4 = Severe. Average grade was calculated based on grades of the four quadrants. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users. |
| Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | 1-Week Follow-up | Horizontal lid margin staining and sagittal lid margin staining are graded for each eyelid (upper and lower) separately. The horizontal and sagittal grades are then averaged for each eyelid to obtain the upper lid average grade and lower lid average grade. The final grade is the average of the upper and lower lid average grades. Participants can be classified according to their final grades for each eye. The classification is defined as follows: None for final grades of 0, Mild for final grades between 0.25 and 1.00, Moderate for final grades between 1.25 and 2.00, and Severe for final graded between 2.25 and 3.00. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was planned to be conducted among habitual contact lens users only. |
| Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | 1-Week Follow-up | Meibomian gland expressiblity was assessed in three regions of the lower eyelid: temporal, central, and nasal. Each region is expressed and the overall grade of the region is evaluated using a four-grade scale: 0 = No Secretion, 1 = Inspissated, 2 = Colored/Cloudy Liquid, and 3 = Clear Liquid Oil. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
A total of 78 subjects were enrolled into this study. Of those enrolled, 65 subjects were assigned to either the observational arm (21) or the interventional arm (44), while 13 subjects failed to meet all eligibility criteria.
Pre-assignment details
Of the 21 subjects assigned to the observational arm, all subjects completed the study. Of the 44 subjects assigned to the interventional arm 2 subjects were discontinued. A total of 63 subjects completed the study.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Observational Arm Subjects wearing their habitual spectacle wearers during the course of the study. This arm was included in the study to investigate ocular characteristics among habitual spectacle wearers which served as a reference group. | 21 |
| Interventional Arms Participants assigned to the interentional arm to wear the Test lens and their own spectacles in a random order. | 44 |
| Total | 65 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period 1 | No Longer Meets Eligibility Criteria | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Period 1 | Test Article no longer available | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Observational Arm | Total | Interventional Arms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 29.1 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.4 | 29.0 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.76 | 28.9 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 3 Participants | 8 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 4 Participants | 7 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 3 Participants | 6 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 11 Participants | 43 Participants | 32 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 21 Participants | 65 Participants | 44 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 16 Participants | 42 Participants | 26 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 5 Participants | 23 Participants | 18 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 21 | 0 / 44 | 0 / 44 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 21 | 0 / 44 | 0 / 44 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 21 | 0 / 44 | 0 / 44 |
Outcome results
Primary
Non-Invasive Break Up Time (NIBUT) or Non-Invasive Keratograph Break Up Time (NIKBUT)
NIBUT/NIKBUT was measured as the time interval in seconds after the final blink to the first appearance of distortion in the reflected rings; or to the time that the participant has to blink due to discomfort. NIBUT is measured by a topographer (e.g. Medmont) via observation by the investigator and a stopwatch. NIKBUTis measured by the Oculus Keratograph and reported by the instrument. Different instrumentation was used depending on site availability. Combined measurements of pre-lens data collected for the interventional arm are reported. Only the interventional arm was reported since the primary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users. The average NIKBUT was reported for each treatment. Higher values indicate better performance
Time frame: 1-Week Follow-up
Population: All subjects who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Non-Invasive Break Up Time (NIBUT) or Non-Invasive Keratograph Break Up Time (NIKBUT) | 8.28 Seconds | Standard Deviation 4.482 |
| Control (Spectacle) | Non-Invasive Break Up Time (NIBUT) or Non-Invasive Keratograph Break Up Time (NIKBUT) | 11.10 Seconds | Standard Deviation 5.761 |
Comparison: The null and alternative hypotheses for testing significant difference between Test lens and Spectacles among habitual lens users with respect to NIBUT/NIKBUT.95% CI: [-4.14, -1.44]Mixed Model Analysis
Secondary
Conjunctival Staining
Conjunctival staining was graded and recorded by quadrant (Superior, Inferior, Nasal, and Temporal) using the following grading scale: Grade 0 = None, Grade 1 = Trace, Grade 2 = Mild, Grade 3 = Moderate, and Grade 4 = Severe. Average grade was calculated based on grades of the four quadrants. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users.
Time frame: 1-Week Follow-up
Population: All subjects who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 2 | 7 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 0 | 40 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 0 | 55 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 1 | 34 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 1 | 34 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 2 | 7 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 1 | 25 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 3 | 1 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 3 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 2 | 2 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 0 | 71 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 1 | 9 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 0 | 41 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 2 | 2 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 3 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 3 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 0 | 59 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 1 | 23 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 2 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 3 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Nasal: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 0 | 79 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 1 | 3 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 2 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 3 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Temporal: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 0 | 75 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 1 | 6 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 2 | 1 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 3 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Inferior: Grade 4 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 1 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 2 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 3 | 0 Number of Eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Conjunctival Staining | Superior: Grade 0 | 82 Number of Eyes |
95% CI: [0.4, 0.65]Mixed Model Analysis
95% CI: [-0.19, 0.44]Mixed Model Analysis
Secondary
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Meibomian gland expressiblity was assessed in three regions of the lower eyelid: temporal, central, and nasal. Each region is expressed and the overall grade of the region is evaluated using a four-grade scale: 0 = No Secretion, 1 = Inspissated, 2 = Colored/Cloudy Liquid, and 3 = Clear Liquid Oil. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users.
Time frame: 1-Week Follow-up
Population: All participants who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 0 | 2 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 0 | 0 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 1 | 0 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 2 | 10 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 3 | 72 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 0 | 0 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 1 | 2 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 2 | 9 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 3 | 71 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 1 | 4 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 2 | 5 Units on a scale |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 3 | 71 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 2 | 5 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 0 | 6 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 1 | 0 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 0 | 0 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 1 | 2 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 1 | 0 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 2 | 7 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 2 | 6 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 3 | 69 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Central Lower Lid- Grade 3 | 76 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 3 | 74 Units on a scale |
| Control (Spectacle) | Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades | Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 0 | 1 Units on a scale |
Secondary
Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy
Horizontal lid margin staining and sagittal lid margin staining are graded for each eyelid (upper and lower) separately. The horizontal and sagittal grades are then averaged for each eyelid to obtain the upper lid average grade and lower lid average grade. The final grade is the average of the upper and lower lid average grades. Participants can be classified according to their final grades for each eye. The classification is defined as follows: None for final grades of 0, Mild for final grades between 0.25 and 1.00, Moderate for final grades between 1.25 and 2.00, and Severe for final graded between 2.25 and 3.00. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was planned to be conducted among habitual contact lens users only.
Time frame: 1-Week Follow-up
Population: All participants who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | None | 36 Number of eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | Mild | 15 Number of eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | Moderate | 29 Number of eyes |
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | Severe | 2 Number of eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | Severe | 2 Number of eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | None | 31 Number of eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | Moderate | 30 Number of eyes |
| Control (Spectacle) | Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy | Mild | 19 Number of eyes |
95% CI: [6.5, 73.8]Mixed Model Analysis
95% CI: [6.1, 69.8]Mixed Model Analysis
Secondary
Total Scores of Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE)
Meibomian gland expressiblity was assessed in three regions of the lower eyelid: temporal, central, and nasal. Each region is expressed and the overall grade of the region is evaluated using a four-grade scale: 0 = No Secretion, 1 = Inspissated, 2 = Colored/Cloudy Liquid, and 3 = Clear Liquid Oil. The total score was calculated as the sum of all grades across the three regions and ranged from 0 (no secretion) to 9, with higher scores indicating more MGE. Total scores were converted into a binary variable for the analysis purpose where Y=1 if the total score is greater than 6 and 0 otherwise. The percentage of participants with MGE total score greater than 6 was estimated. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users.
Time frame: 1-Week Follow-up
Population: All participants who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test (Senofilcon A) | Total Scores of Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) | 8.5 Units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.24 |
| Control (Spectacle) | Total Scores of Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) | 8.5 Units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.28 |
Comparison: Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals95% CI: [43.2, 97.89]Mixed Model Analysis
Comparison: Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals95% CI: [48.67, 96.75]Mixed Model Analysis