ArticleScientific reports2023
Myopia progression risk assessment score (MPRAS): a promising new tool for risk stratification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eight-Year Post-Trial Outcomes of a Two-Year Clinical Trial of DIMS Spectacle Lenses.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Myopia as a Global Public Health Challenge a Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cross-population validation of the PreMO risk indicator for predicting myopia onset in children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Optometry: Current and Future Perspectives.Clinical optometry · 2025Review
- Awareness of Myopia Associated Complications and Perspectives on Myopia Management Among Parents of Children with Myopia in France and the UK.Patient related outcome measures · 2025Article
- Personalized Care in Eye Health: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and the Road Ahead for Chatbots.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely identification of individuals "at-risk" for myopia progression is the leading requisite for myopia practice as it aids in the decision of appropriate management. This study aimed to develop 'myopia progression risk assessment score' (MPRAS) based on multiple risk factors (10) to determine whether a myope is "at-risk" or "low-risk" for myopia progression. Two risk-score models (model-1: non-weightage, model-2: weightage) were developed. Ability of MPRAS to diagnose individual "at-risk" for myopia progression was compared against decision of five clinicians in 149 myopes, aged 6-29 years. Using model-1 (no-weightage), further 7 sub-models were created with varying number of risk factors in decreasing step-wise manner (1a: 10 factors to 1g: 4 factors). In random eye analysis for model-1, the highest Youden's J-index (0.63-0.65) led to the MPRAS cut-off score of 41.50-43.50 for 5 clinicians with a sensitivity ranging from 78 to 85% and specificity ranging from 79 to 87%. For this cut-off score, the mean area under the curve (AUC) between clinicians and the MPRAS model ranged from 0.89 to 0.90. Model-2 (weighted for few risk-factors) provided similar sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Sub-model analysis revealed greater AUC with high sensitivity (89%) and specificity (94%) in model-1g that has 4 risk factors compared to other sub-models (1a-1f). All the MPRAS models showed good agreement with the clinician's decision in identifying individuals "at-risk" for myopia 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.