Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38710983›Full record

ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2024

Myopia Control: Are We Ready for an Evidence Based Approach?

Leila Sara Eppenberger, Andrzej Grzybowski, Leopold Schmetterer, Marcus Ang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical evaluation of MyoCare in Europe (CEME) for myopia management: One-year results.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Correlation of anterior chamber parameters and intraocular pressure with white-to-white corneal diameter in myopic eyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Management of myopia: a mini-review.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Leila Sara EppenbergerSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9336-8941
Andrzej GrzybowskiUniversity of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3724-2391
Leopold SchmettererSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7189-1707
Marcus AngSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore. Marcus.Ang@Singhealth.com.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3022-0795

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMyopia and its vision-threatening complications present a significant public health problem. This review aims to provide an updated overview of the multitude of known and emerging interventions to control myopia, including their potential effect, safety, and costs.

methodsA systematic literature search of three databases was conducted. Interventions were grouped into four categories: environmental/behavioral (outdoor time, near work), pharmacological (e.g., atropine), optical interventions (spectacles and contact lenses), and novel approaches such as red-light (RLRL) therapies. Review articles and original articles on randomized controlled trials (RCT) were selected.

resultsFrom the initial 3224 retrieved records, 18 reviews and 41 original articles reporting results from RCTs were included. While there is more evidence supporting the efficacy of low-dose atropine and certain myopia-controlling contact lenses in slowing myopia progression, the evidence about the efficacy of the newer interventions, such as spectacle lenses (e.g., defocus incorporated multiple segments and highly aspheric lenslets) is more limited. Behavioral interventions, i.e., increased outdoor time, seem effective for preventing the onset of myopia if implemented successfully in schools and homes. While environmental interventions and spectacles are regarded as generally safe, pharmacological interventions, contact lenses, and RLRL may be associated with adverse effects. All interventions, except for behavioral change, are tied to moderate to high expenditures.

conclusionOur review suggests that myopia control interventions are recommended and prescribed on the basis of accessibility and clinical practice patterns, which vary widely around the world. Clinical trials indicate short- to medium-term efficacy in reducing myopia progression for various interventions, but none have demonstrated long-term effectiveness in preventing high myopia and potential complications in adulthood. There is an unmet need for a unified consensus for strategies that balance risk and effectiveness for these methods for personalized myopia management.

Indexed as

CostEffectInterventionMyopia controlMyopia managementRCTsSafety

Identifiers

PMID38710983
PMCPMC11109072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.