Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30703197›Full record

Trial reportJAMA ophthalmology2019

Predictors of Spectacle Wear and Reasons for Nonwear in Students Randomized to Ready-made or Custom-made Spectacles: Results of Secondary Objectives From a Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

Priya Morjaria, Jennifer Evans, Clare Gilbert

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Myopia in India.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Priya MorjariaClinical Research Unit, Infectious Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Jennifer EvansClinical Research Unit, Infectious Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Clare GilbertClinical Research Unit, Infectious Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Visual impairment from uncorrected refractive errors affects 12.8 million children globally. Spectacle correction is simple and cost-effective; however, low adherence to spectacle wear, which can occur in all income settings, limits visual potential. Objective: To investigate predictors of spectacle wear and reasons for nonwear in students randomized to ready-made or custom-made spectacles. Design, Setting, and Participants: In planned secondary objectives of a noninferiority randomized clinical trial, students aged 11 to 15 years who fulfilled eligibility criteria, which included improvement in vision with correction by at least 2 lines in the better eye, were recruited from government schools in Bangalore, India. Recruitment took place between January 12 and July 15, 2015, and analysis for the primary outcome occurred in August 2016. Data analysis for the secondary outcome was conducted in August 2018. Spectacle wear was assessed by masked observers at unannounced visits to schools 3 to 4 months after spectacles were distributed. Students not wearing their spectacles were asked an open-ended question to elicit reasons for nonwear. Main Outcomes and Measures: Predictors of spectacle wear and reasons for nonwear. Results: Of 460 students recruited and randomized (52.2% male; 46 students aged 11 to 12 years and 13 to 15 years in each trial arm), 78.7% (362 of 460) were traced at follow-up, and 25.4% (92 of 362) were not wearing their spectacles (no difference between trial arms). Poorer presenting visual acuity (VA) and improvement in VA with correction predicted spectacle wear. Students initially seen with an uncorrected VA less than 6/18 in the better eye were almost 3 times more likely to be wearing their spectacles than those with less than 6/9 to 6/12 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.52-5.27). Improvement of VA with correction of 3 to 6 lines or more than 6 lines had adjusted odds ratios of 2.31 (95% CI, 1.19-4.50) and 2.57 (95% CI, 1.32-5.01), respectively, compared with an improvement of less than 3 lines. The main reason students gave for nonwear was teasing or bullying by peers (48.9% [45 of 92]). Girls reported parental disapproval as a reason more frequently than boys (difference, 7.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: Three-quarters of students receiving spectacles were wearing them at follow-up, which supports the use of the prescribing guidelines applied in this trial. Predictors of spectacle wear, poorer presenting VA, and greater improvement in VA with correction are similar to other studies. Interventions to reduce teasing and bullying are required, and health education of parents is particularly needed for girls in this setting. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN14715120.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildEquipment DesignEyeglassesFemaleHumansIndiaMalePatient ComplianceRefractive ErrorsStudents

Identifiers

PMID30703197
PMCPMC6459098
OpenAlexW2914712709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.