Trial reportActa ophthalmologica2019
Effects of bifocals on visual acuity in children with Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Acta ophthalmologica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and Etiology of Strabismus in Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Focus on Ethnic Differences in the Esotropia/Exotropia Ratio.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- One-year effects of bifocal and unifocal glasses on executive functions in children with Down syndrome in a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Bifocals reduce strabismus in children with Down syndrome: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial.Acta ophthalmologica · 2020Trial
- Ophthalmic screening in down syndrome: A DSMIG UK Best practice recommendation (Revised 2025).Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Sources of reduced visual acuity and spectacle treatment options for individuals with Down syndrome: Review of current literature.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Review
- The Multidisciplinary Guidelines for Diagnosis and Referral in Cerebral Visual Impairment.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Differences between children with Down syndrome and typically developing children in adaptive behaviour, executive functions and visual acuity.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Challenges in Patients with Trisomy 21: A Review of Current Knowledge and Recommendations.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeChildren with Down syndrome (DS) typically have reduced visual acuity (VA) and accommodation lag, but it is unclear whether prescribed glasses should correct both distance VA (DVA) and near VA (NVA) due to the lack of RCTs. We therefore conducted a multicentre RCT to compare the effects of bifocals designed to correct both DVA and NVA with distance-correcting unifocal glasses in children with DS.
methodsA total of 119 children with DS, aged 2-16, were randomly allocated for bifocal or unifocal glasses (with full correction of refraction error in cycloplegia) in 14 Dutch hospitals and followed during 1 year. VA data were analysed in relation to baseline VA with ancova.
resultsTreatment groups showed no differences at baseline. Shortly after receiving new corrections (~6 weeks), uncrowded NVA (bifocals 0.18 ± 0.33 LogMar; unifocals 0.09 ± 0.19 LogMar) and crowded NVA with bifocals (bifocals 0.13 ± 0.36 LogMar; unifocals 0.08 ± 0.33 LogMar) were significantly better than at baseline, but these short-term improvements in NVA were not significantly different between the two treatments (p > 0.151). The 1-year treatment differences were as follows: significantly larger improvement for bifocals compared to unifocals in both uncrowded NVA (bifocals 0.23 ± 0.29 LogMar, unifocals 0.12 ± 0.30 LogMar, p = 0.045) and crowded NVA (bifocals 0.31 ± 0.28 LogMar; unifocals 0.16 ± 0.30 LogMar, p = 0.017). Improvements in DVA were comparable (bifocals 0.07 ± 0.21 LogMar, unifocals 0.08 ± 0.22 LogMar, p = 0.565). Children with poor baseline VA improved more. Accommodation lag stayed unchanged.
conclusionAfter one year, bifocals with full correction of ametropia led to significantly larger improvement of both uncrowded NVA and crowded NVA in children with DS with accommodation lag compared to unifocals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.