ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Comparative study on the quality of life and clinical efficacy of orthokeratology lens, defocus spectacle lens and single vision spectacles in myopic children and adolescents in China.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Contact Lenses and Vision-Related Quality of Life: Evidence and Clinical Insights.Clinical optometry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the vision-related quality of life and efficacy between myopic children and adolescents wearing orthokeratology (OK) lens, defocus spectacle (DS) lens and single vision spectacle (SVS).
methodsThis ambispective cohort study involved 93 participants who had worn optical correction lenses (31 OK lens, 31 DS lens and 31 SVS) for 1 year. The Pediatric Refractive Error Profile questionnaire was used to compare the visual-related quality of life after 1 year of lens wear among the three groups. Changes in axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent (SE) at 6 months and 1 year of lens wear across the groups were assessed.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in academics and symptoms among the three groups (p>0.05). The OK lens group scored significantly higher in overall vision, far vision, appearance, satisfaction, activities, peer perception and overall scores than the SVS and DS lens groups (p<0.05). The DS lens group showed significantly lower scores in near vision compared with the OK lens and SVS groups (p<0.05). The OK lens group had a significantly lower handling score than the SVS group (p=0.01), with no significant difference between the OK lens and DS lens groups (p=0.184). In the 12th month, the axial length (AL) changes in the OK lens, DS lens and SVS groups were 0.18±0.08 mm, 0.27±0.08 mm and 0.36±0.09 mm, respectively (p<0.05). The OK lens group had the shortest AL elongation compared with the DS lens and SVS groups (p<0.05). The axial growth of the DS lens group was less than that of the SVS group (p<0.05). At both the 6th and 12th months, both the DS lens group and the SVS group showed an increasing trend in SE, with the SVS group exhibiting a significantly greater increase in SE compared with the DS lens group (p<0.001).
conclusionAlthough both the DS lens and OK lens can effectively control myopia, the OK lens demonstrates superior performance in improving vision-related quality of life and controlling axial elongation. This study is limited by the fact that the lens brands chosen by participants in the three groups were all commonly available brands on the market, and no single brand was selected for comparison.
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.