SynthesisJournal of optometry
Under-correction or full correction of myopia? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practice patterns in pediatric myopia management: Insights from a 2023 survey among Indian ophthalmologists.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Refractive development II: Modelling normal and myopic eye growth.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Pharmaceutical Prescribing Privileges for Optometrists to Combat Childhood Myopia in Singapore: Public Health Policy Review and Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Parameters Governing the Anti-Myopia Efficacy of Chromatically Simulated Myopic Defocus in Tree Shrews.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of objective and subjective binocular ocular refraction with looking in type.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Cycloplegic refraction in children.Community eye health · 2024Article
- Effect of Myopic Undercorrection on Habitual Reading Distance in Schoolchildren: The Hong Kong Children Eye Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effect of full-correction versus under-correction on myopia progression.
methodsA literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane library. Methodological quality assessment of the literature was evaluated according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2, Biostat Inc., USA).
resultsThe present meta-analysis included six studies (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and four non-RCTs) with 695 subjects (full-correction group, n=371; under-correction group, n=324) aged 6 to 33 years. Using cycloplegic refraction, the pooled difference in mean of myopia progression was - 0.179 D [lower and higher limits: -0.383, 0.025], which was higher but not in full correction group as compared to under correction group (p=0.085). Regarding studies using non-cycloplegic subjective refraction according to maximum plus for maximum visual acuity, the pooled difference in myopia progression was 0.128 D [lower and higher limits: -0.057, 0.312] higher in under-correction group compared with full-correction group (p=0.175). Although, difference in myopia progression did not reach significant level in either cycloplegic or non-cycloplegic refraction.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that, myopic eyes which are fully corrected with non-cycloplegic refraction with maximum plus sphere, are less prone to myopia progression, in comparison to those which were under corrected. However, regarding cycloplegic refraction, further studies are needed to better understand these trends.
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.