ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Is 0.01% Atropine an Effective and Safe Treatment for Myopic Children? A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of low-dose atropine eyedrops on pupil metrics: results after half a year of treatment and cessation.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Trial
- Article
- Myopia Control in Caucasian Children with 0.01% Atropine Eye Drops: 1-Year Follow-Up Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Low concentration atropine and myopia: a narrative review of the evidence for United Kingdom based practitioners.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Comparison of different concentrations atropine in controlling children and adolescent myopia: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Age-related results over 2 years of the multicenter Spanish study of atropine 0.01% in childhood myopia progression.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Advances in artificial intelligence models and algorithms in the field of optometry.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Neuroaxonal and cellular damage/protection by prostanoid receptor ligands, fatty acid derivatives and associated enzyme inhibitors.Neural regeneration research · 2023Review
- Special Issue on Ophthalmic Optics and Visual Function.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of 0.01% Atropine on Accommodation in Myopic Teenagers.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Comparisons of Three Methods for Myopia Control in Adolescents.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Effect of 0.01% atropine eyedrops on intraocular pressure in schoolchildren: a randomized clinical trial.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several conflicting results regarding the efficacy of 0.01% atropine in slowing axial elongation remain in doubt. To solve this issue and evaluate the safety of 0.01% atropine, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the latest evidence. The review included a total of 1178 participants (myopic children). The efficacy outcomes were the mean annual progression in standardized equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL). The safety outcomes included mean annual change in accommodative amplitude, photopic and mesopic pupil diameter. The results demonstrated that 0.01% atropine significantly retarded SER progression compared with the controls (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.28 diopter (D) per year; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.17, 0.38;
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.