ReviewBMC ophthalmology2023
Analysis of 2-year spherical equivalent progression in emmetropic children with non-cycloplegic refraction: a retrospective chart review.
Review in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Characteristics of Intermittent Exotropia in Children with Myopia and Myopic Anisometropia.Current medical science · 2025Article
- Axial Length to Corneal Radius of Curvature Ratio (AL/CR) and Refractive Errors in a Single Center Romanian Population.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Investigation of Natural Refractive Changes in Young Hyperopic Children Using Atropine Cycloplegic Refraction.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to investigate children with an emmetropic non-cycloplegic refraction (NCR) to compare the difference in progression of NC spherical equivalent (SE) over 2 years between the children with emmetropic and hyperopic cycloplegic refraction (CR) values.
methodsThrough a retrospective medical record review, 59 children aged under 10 years were evaluated. Refractive error was calculated as the average of the SE values of both eyes. According to the CR results, children with emmetropia (-0.50 to 1.00 diopter [D]) were assigned to group 1 (n = 29), and those with hyperopia (≥ 1.00 D) were assigned to group 2 (n = 30). The prevalence of myopia and SE progression were compared over 2 years. Correlations between final SE progression and baseline age and refractive error were analyzed and multiple regression analysis was conducted. Receiver operating characteristic curves that achieved the best cutoff points to distinguish between the groups were calculated.
resultsGroup 1 showed significantly myopic SE changes compared to baseline at the 1-year follow-up, and group 1 was significantly myopic compared with group 2 at the 2-year follow-up. Myopia prevalence was 51.7% in group 1 and 6.7% in group 2 after 1 year, and 61.1% and 16.7% after 2 years, respectively. In the correlation analysis, baseline age, baseline CR, and difference between CR and NCR showed significant correlations with the 2-year SE progression (r = -0.359, p = 0.005; r = 0.450, p < 0.001; r = -0.562, p < 0.001, respectively). However, NCR refractive error showed no significant correlation (r = -0.097, p = 0.468). In multiple regression analysis, baseline age (β= -0.082), and CR-NCR difference (β= -0.214) showed a significant effect on SE progression for 2 years. When an NCR value of 0.20 D was set as the cut-off value to distinguish between the groups, a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 92% were obtained.
conclusionEven if NCR showed emmetropia, children with baseline CR values of emmetropia showed greater SE progression compared with those with hyperopia. Cycloplegia is essential to confirm the correct refractive status in children. It may be useful for predicting prognosis of SE 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.