ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of three VST orthokeratology lenses in axial length growth and average corneal reshaping in myopia children: A retrospective self-controlled study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Myopia Control Efficacy: Orthokeratology, Defocus-Incorporated Soft Contact Lenses and Their Combination with 0.01% Atropine in Chinese Children and Adolescents.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Association between axial elongation and corneal power distribution changes induced by aspheric orthokeratology lenses.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Article
- Comparing Myopia Control Effects of Three Different Orthokeratology Lenses and Spectacle Lenses With Highly Aspherical Lenslets in Low Myopia Children.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Long-Term Efficacy of CRT, Lucid, Euclid, and IBright Orthokeratology Lenses in Controlling Myopia Progression in Children and Adolescents: A 36-Month Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Nomogram to predict the axial elongation with orthokeratology: A 6-year follow up study.Journal of optometryArticle
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 determine the differences in myopia control efficiency and corneal reshaping between three different brands of orthokeratology (OK) lenses (Lucid, Euclid, and Alpha). Method: We retrospectively reviewed subjects who started simultaneously using different brands of OK lenses. For each participant, every 6 months in the 19 months of following, the changes in axial length (AL), horizontal and vertical maximum distances of the treatment zone (HMDTZ and VMDTZ), width of the high convex zone (WHCZ), distance of decentration, and horizontal and vertical components of the decentration vector were measured. The average values of the above data, the average value of the decentration vector (ADV), and the average value of decentration calculated algebraically (ADA) were calculated. Results: All the three pairs (Lucid (n = 46) vs. Euclid (n = 46): groups Lucid-versus-Euclid-Lucid (LE-L) and LE-E), Lucid (n = 50) vs. Alpha (n = 50): groups LA-L and LA-A), and Euclid (n = 17) vs. Alpha (n = 17): groups EA-E and EA-A) showed good comparability. Regarding the change in AL during 19 months, none of the pairs showed significant differences (LE-L:0.27 ± 0.24 mm, LE-E:0.31 ± 0.24 mm ( Conclusion: After OK, there were no significant differences between the different pairs of the three brands in AL growth, WHCZ, or lens position stability, although Lucid had a larger treatment zone than Euclid and Alpha, and Lucid had more decentration than Euclid. A larger lens decentration were weakly related to less AL growth.
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.