ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness of myopia-control spectacles and contact lenses for children and adolescents in Wales.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low concentration atropine eye drops and progression of myopia in children: multicentre placebo controlled, double masked, randomised trial in the UK (CHAMP-UK).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Trial
- Myopia management functional lenses (MMFL): a bibliometric analysis of multidisciplinary perspective and trend insights in the context of vision health.International ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of four myopia control interventions in children: a single-center retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- The prevalence and costs of optical correction for childhood myopia in Scotland.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly intervention to slow childhood progression of myopia may improve quality of life and prevent future complications that burden individuals and healthcare systems. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of myopia-control spectacles and contact lenses for the reduction of myopia progression among children and adolescents in Wales.
methodsA cost-utility analysis compared peripheral plus spectacle lenses (PPSL), multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCL) and orthokeratology against single-vision correction. Efficacy and safety were informed by a Cochrane systemic review and meta-analyses. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs incurred by NHS Wales were modelled over a lifetime horizon and discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses estimated uncertainty in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsPPSL was estimated to provide minimal benefit at a higher cost than single-vision correction. MFSCL gave a 0.28 QALY improvement at an additional cost of £4,040; corresponding to an ICER of £8,367 versus single-vision correction. Orthokeratology provided 0.5 QALYs at an additional cost of £3,732; corresponding to an ICER of £3,995 versus single-vision correction. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ICERs were below £20,000 in 71% and 90% of simulations for MFSCL and orthokeratology, respectively. Orthokeratology was the most cost-effective strategy in 76% of simulations. Cost-effectiveness was influenced by changes in progression rates, intervention costs and the utility of high myopia. However, orthokeratology remained the most cost-effective strategy throughout.
conclusionsMFSCL and orthokeratology may be cost-effective options to slow the progression of myopia at thresholds applied in the UK. Further research is needed to understand the long-term effects of myopia-control interventions and their impact on quality of life.
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.