ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05288335 (Muti-center Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Two Types of Circular Column Modulated Lenses for Delaying the Progression of Myopia), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Muti-center Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Two Types of Circular Column Modulated Lenses for Delaying the Progression of Myopia
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Myopia prevalence in Malaysian children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Mechanisms of Neuroperceptual Differences Between Subjective and Objective Refraction Based on Multimodal Imaging and Neurovisual Features.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the agreement between objective wavefront-based refraction and subjective refraction in myopic children. It also assessed the impact of cyclopentolate and refraction levels on the agreement.
methodsA total of 84 eyes of myopic children aged 6-13 years were included in the analysis. Non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic objective wavefront-based refraction were determined and cycloplegic subjective refraction was performed for each participant. The data were converted into spherical equivalent, J
resultsLinear functions were used to determine the dependency between the central myopic refractive error and the difference between the method of refraction (=bias). The influence of central myopia was not clinically relevant when analysing the agreement between wavefront results with and without cyclopentolate (comparison 1). The bias for wavefront-based minus subjective spherical equivalent refraction (comparison 2) was ≤-0.50 D (95% limits of agreement -0.010 D to -1.00 D) for myopia of -4.55 D and higher when cycloplegia was used (p<0.05). When no cyclopentolate was used for the wavefront-based refraction (comparison 3), the bias of -0.50 D (95% limits of agreement -0.020 D to -0.97 D) was already reached at a myopic error of -2.97 D. Both astigmatic components showed no clinically relevant bias.
conclusionThe spherical equivalent, measured without cycloplegic agents, led to more myopic measurements when wavefront-based refraction was used. The observed bias increased with the amount of myopic refractive error for comparisons 2 and 3, which needs to be considered when interpreting wavefront-refraction data. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05288335.
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.