ArticleOphthalmology science2023
Randomized Trial of Soft Contact Lenses with Novel Ring Focus for Controlling Myopia Progression.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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) · 2025Trial
- 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) · 2026Review
- Measuring Treatment Adherence in Myopia Control: Current Practices and Future Directions.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- IMI-Interventions for Controlling Myopia Onset and Progression 2025.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- 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) · 2025Article
- Childhood Myopia Part I: Contemporary Treatment Options.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Childhood Myopia Part II: Treatment Mechanisms, Emerging Options, and Considerations.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Article
- Efficacy of Repeated Low-Level Red Light (RLRL) Therapy in Managing Childhood Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Retinal image quality for multifocal lenses with on- and off-axis annular zones.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Myopia Control: Are We Ready for an Evidence Based Approach?Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Review
- Optical interventions for myopia control.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Article
- Comparison of two different orthokeratology lenses and defocus incorporated soft contact (DISC) lens in controlling myopia progression.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2023Article
- Peripheral Defocus and Myopia Management: A Mini-Review.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2023Review
- Optical Strategy Utilizing Contrast Modulation to Slow Myopia.Ophthalmology scienceReview
- A narrative review on orthokeratology for myopia control: Lens design, combination therapies, and clinical management.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.