ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research
Visual Performance of Two Designs of Myopia Management Soft Contact Lenses Compared with a Monofocal One in Young Adults.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating retinal image quality for myopia control lenses in a synthetic accommodative wavefront model.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Statistical Model of Ocular Wavefronts With Accommodation.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the visual performance of two distinct types of soft contact lenses (CL) aimed at slowing down myopia progression with the performance of a monofocal soft CL. Methods: In a prospective double-masked, crossover trial, 18 myopic adults (aged 18-30 years old) were fitted in a randomized order with three types of disposable CL: MiSight Results: The high contrast distance VAwas better for the single vision CL compared to the myopia control CL. No significant differences were observed between the r two myopia control CL. The overall root mean square (RMS) was higher for the double focus CL (RMS = 1.18 Conclusion: The overall RMS resulted in a higher value for the dual-focus than the EDOF CL, but no differences in high contrast distance VA and binocularity were detected between them. The monofocal CL's performance was better than the myopia control CL.
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.