Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38429067›Full record

ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2024

Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management.

Jonas Müller, Xiaoqin Chen, Arne Ohlendorf, Lihua Li, Siegfried Wahl

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05288335 naunknown statusnot on this map

Muti-center Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Two Types of Circular Column Modulated Lenses for Delaying the Progression of Myopia

TypeinterventionalSponsorTianjin Eye HospitalRan2022 to 2024Enrolled240ConditionsMyopiaArmsCircular cylindrical mirror modulated frame glasses (compact), Circular cylindrical mirror modulated frame glasses (strong defocus), single vision frame glasses
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jonas MüllerInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany jona.mueller@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7941-8279
Xiaoqin ChenTianjin Eye Institute, Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Arne OhlendorfInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Lihua LiTianjin Eye Institute, Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Siegfried WahlInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MyopiaRefractive ErrorsChildCyclopentolateHumansMydriaticsPupilCyclopentolateMydriaticsChild health (paediatrics)DrugsOptics and RefractionVision

Identifiers

PMID38429067
PMCPMC10910427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.