Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36545264›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science2023

Randomized Trial of Soft Contact Lenses with Novel Ring Focus for Controlling Myopia Progression.

Xu Cheng, Jie Xu, Noel A Brennan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Optical characterisation and vision quality assessment of two myopia control contact lenses.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Trial
  2. Contemporary Research Questions in the Field of Contact Lenses and Where to Next?Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. IMI-Interventions for Controlling Myopia Onset and Progression 2025.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
    Review
  5. Three-year myopia management efficacy of extended depth of focus soft contact lenses (MYLO) in Caucasian children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  6. Childhood Myopia Part I: Contemporary Treatment Options.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Optical interventions for myopia control.Eye (London, England) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Peripheral Defocus and Myopia Management: A Mini-Review.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xu ChengR&D, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Jacksonville, Florida.
Jie XuR&D, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Jacksonville, Florida.
Noel A BrennanR&D, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Jacksonville, Florida.
Johnson & Johnson (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate efficacy and vision with 2 prototype myopia control soft contact lenses with noncoaxial ring-focus designs (for enhancing efficacy [EE] and enhancing vision [EV]) compared with dual-focus (DF) and single-vision (SV) designs. Design: Multicenter, 6-month, randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial. Participants: One hundred ninety-nine myopic (-0.75 diopters [D] to -4.50 D) children aged 7 to 12 years. Methods: Participants were randomized with stratification into myopia control (EE, EV, or DF) or SV arms at 9 clinical sites in 3 countries. Postcycloplegia axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent autorefraction (SECAR) were measured at baseline and 26 weeks. Axial length was also measured without cycloplegia at baseline, 1, 4, 13, and 26 weeks. Progression was analyzed using linear mixed models by intention-to-treat population. Visual acuity (VA) and vision quality were monitored. Main Outcome Measures: Axial elongation, change in SECAR. Results: A total of 185 subjects completed the study (n = 44, 49, 45, and 47 for EE, EV, DF, and SV, respectively). There were no serious/significant ocular adverse events. After 26 weeks, EE, EV, and DF all had statistically significantly less axial elongation than SV (unadjusted mean [standard deviation]: EE, 0.079 [0.125]; EV, 0.119 [0.101]; DF, 0.135 [0.117]; SV; 0.189 [0.121] mm). The estimated least-square mean (LSM) differences (adjusted 95% confidence interval) compared with SV were -0.105 (-0.149, -0.062), -0.063 (-0.106, -0.020), and -0.056 (-0.100, -0.013) mm for EE, EV, and DF, respectively. Enhancing efficacy alone had statistically significantly less progression of SECAR than SV (EE: -0.12 [0.27] D vs. SV: -0.35 [0.33] D; LSM difference: 0.22 D [0.09, 0.35]). Enhancing efficacy also had statistically significantly less axial elongation than DF (-0.049 mm [-0.093, -0.004]). Changes in AL and SECAR of EV and DF were not statistically different. All 3 myopia control lenses had mean VA close to 0.00 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) with estimated 95% upper confidence limits <0.10 logMAR. Enhancing efficacy and DF produced similar reports of halos but more than EV and SV. Conclusions: The prototype contact lenses met the design intent; EE was more efficacious in slowing axial elongation than DF with comparable vision performance, whereas EV produced comparable efficacy to DF with similar vision performance to SV.

Indexed as

AL, axial lengthAxial length, Myopia control, Pediatric, Soft contact lenses, VisionB2B, bottom-2-boxesCI, confidence intervalD, diopterDF, dual-focusEE, enhanced efficacyEV, enhanced visionlogMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolutionLSM, least-square meanMMRM, mixed models with repeated measuresSD, standard deviationSECAR, spherical equivalent cycloplegic autorefractionSE, standard errorSV, single-visionVA, visual acuity

Identifiers

PMID36545264
PMCPMC9762188
OpenAlexW4306735107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.