ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of visual functions among early and late onset myopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Comparison of accommodation and vergence parameters in early and late-onset myopic adults.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early-onset myopia (EOM) progresses more rapidly and sets a higher risk of developing high myopia, whereas late-onset myopia (LOM) is typically associated with lower refractive error. However, differences in visual function between these groups remain underexplored. This cross-sectional study compared high-contrast visual acuity, low-contrast visual acuity, contrast sensitivity function (CSF), blur perception, and depth of focus in individuals with EOM and LOM. Twenty participants (10 EOM, 10 LOM) aged 18-35 years with myopia ranging from - 0.50 to - 6.00 D were included. Visual function assessments were conducted using MATLAB and PsychoPy software, with all measurements taken under full-distance spectacle correction. While high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity showed no significant differences, CSF parameters showed significant differences. The area under the curve, peak spatial frequency, and cutoff spatial frequency were significantly lower in EOM than in LOM (p = 0.019, 0.032, and 0.005, respectively). Blur perception thresholds also varied, though statistical significance was not reached. These findings suggest that individuals with EOM may show compromised contrast sensitivity, possibly affecting their overall visual quality. Understanding these functional differences can help in developing targeted interventions for myopia management, ensuring personalized approaches to optimize visual performance across different onset groups.
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.