ArticleJournal of vision2023
Effect of multifocal spectacle lenses on accommodative errors over time: Possible implications for myopia control.
Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Myopia Control Spectacle Lens Designs on Visual Function.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Trial
- Dynamic Accommodation Responses in Subjects Wearing Myopia Control Spectacles Modifying Peripheral Refraction.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Trial
- Advances in optical and pharmacological strategies for myopia correction in children.American journal of translational research · 2025Review
- Article
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
The study purpose was to improve understanding of how multifocal spectacle lenses affect accommodative errors and whether this changes over time. Fifty-two myopes aged 18 to 27 years were allocated randomly to one of two progressive addition lens (PAL) types with 1.50 D additions and different horizontal power gradients across the near-periphery boundary. Lags of accommodation were determined with a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor and a COAS-HD aberrometer for several near distances with the distance correction and the near PAL correction. For the COAS-HD the neural sharpness (NS) metric was used. Measures were repeated at three-month intervals over 12 months. At the final visit, lags to booster addition powers of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 D were measured. Except at baseline, both PALs' data were combined for analysis. For the Grand Seiko autorefractor, both PALs reduced accommodative lag at baseline compared with SVLs (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 at all distances for PAL 1 and PAL 2, respectively). For the COAS-HD, at baseline PAL 1 reduced accommodative lag at all near distances (p < 0.02), but PAL 2 only at 40 cm (p < 0.02). Lags measured with COAS-HD were greater for shorter target distances with PALs. After 12 months' wear, the PALs no longer reduced accommodative lags significantly, except at 40 cm distance, but 0.50 D and 0.75 D booster adds decreased the lags to those measured at baseline or less. In conclusion, for PALs to reduce accommodative lag effectively, addition power should be tailored to typical working distances and after the first year of wear should be boosted by at least 0.50 D to maintain efficacy.
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.