ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020
To Correct or Not Correct? Actual Evidence, Controversy and the Questions That Remain Open.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Habitual Spectacle-Corrected Distance Visual Acuity and Axial Elongation in School-Based Myopia Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- IMI-Interventions for Controlling Myopia Onset and Progression 2025.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Neural contrast sensitivity is not affected by myopic blur.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Single-vision spectacle use and myopia progression in children with low myopia, a propensity score matching study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Article
- The equations of ametropia: Predicting myopia.Journal of optometryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical studies and basic research have attempted to establish a relationship between myopia progression and single vision spectacle wear, albeit with unclear results. Single vision spectacle lenses are continuously used as the control group in myopia control trials. Hence, it is a matter of high relevance to investigate further whether they yield any shift on the refractive state, which could have been masked by being used as a control. In this review, eye development in relation to eyes fully corrected versus those under-corrected is discussed, and new guidelines are provided for the analysis of structural eye changes due to optical treatments. These guidelines are tested and optimised, while ethical implications are revisited. This newly described methodology can be translated to larger clinical trials, finally exerting the real effect of full correction via single vision spectacle lens wear on eye growth and myopia progression.
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.