ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Adult Myopia Progression.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07747311 (Dual-focus Soft Contact Lenses for the Treatment of Adult Myopia Progression), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Dual-focus Soft Contact Lenses for the Treatment of Adult Myopia Progression
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Myopia Trends in Europe: A Reappraisal of Current Evidence.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Intraocular Pressure-Lowering Therapy Slows Down Axial Elongation in Progressive High Myopia with Enhanced Choroidal Perfusion.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Risk Factors for Adult Axial Length Elongation: A 5-Year Population-Based Cohort Study.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Axial Elongation after LASIK versus Soft Contact Lens Wear in the Contralateral Eye.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- IMI-2025 Digest.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- IMI-Interventions for Controlling Myopia Onset and Progression 2025.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States between 1971 and 1972 and 1999 and 2004-A Reappraisal.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
- Patterns of Myopia Progression in European Adults.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore evidence for myopic shift between the ages of 20 and 50 years. Methods: Three usable sets of data with long-term adult refractive progression were identified: (1) US population-based prevalence data for those 18 to 24 years of age in 1971 and 1972 and 45 to 54 years of age from 1999 to 2004; a logit transformation of prevalence values at different refractive error thresholds allowed estimation of myopic progression in this group. (2) German clinical data describing 5- to 10-year progression for different refractive error groupings across 5-year age bands from 20 to 49 years; these were extracted, adjusted, and analyzed. (3) Five-year progression rates with similar breakdown of age and refractive error groups as the German data but in a Japanese clinical population. Results: Estimates of progression between 20 and 50 years for the given studies were: (1) -1.1, -1.4, and -1.9 diopters (D) for baseline refractive errors of -1, -3, and -6 D, respectively; (2) a range from -1.0 to -2.9 D, increasing with degree of baseline myopia; (3) a weighted average of -1.0 D for males and -0.9 D for females but with decreasing progression with increasing myopia. In all studies, average progression rates fell with increasing age, with most progression occurring between 20 and 30 years. Conclusions: All three studies provide evidence of around -1 D myopia progression between the ages of 20 and 50 years. This has implications for intervention to slow progression during adulthood, as well as projections of visual impairment associated with myopia.
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.