SynthesisJournal of optometry
Outcomes in randomized controlled trials on slowing myopia: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionThis review aims to analyse the application of the measure methods and measure contents of the outcomes reported in studies on slowing myopia, and the associations between outcomes and study characteristics.
methodsPublications were identified by a search of seven electronic databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, Wanfang database, CQVIP database, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Excerpta Medica Database, for relevant terms like myopia and randomized controlled trial from construction to Sept. 15th, 2023. The basic information of studies was extracted, including publishing time, region, intervention duration, sample size, intervention and outcome. Additionally, the measurements of outcomes were explored. The risk of bias of all studies included were assessed.
resultsAltogether, 599 randomized controlled trials were included, including vision (52.75 %), refraction (64.94 %), eye axial length (47.25 %) and response rate (38.23 %). Since 478 studies (79.80 %) were published in Chinese, the included studies were divided into subgroups according to the study language. The number of research published in Chinese was surged since 2005. The rate of refraction was gradually increased from 27.27 % before 2005 to 71.08 % in the past 2 years. 121 studies in English were included in this study. The usage frequency of refraction was ≥75 % in each period and that of eye axial length kept at more than half. In the studies lasting >6 months, the usage frequencies of refraction and axial length were >90 %. They accounted for 91.30 % and 82.61 % in the studies using contact lenses, and both 94.12 % in the studies using spectacles.
conclusionMore and more attention is paid in slowing myopia, and the reported outcomes are diverse. Based on the analysis of the outcomes, there is a lack of an agreed-upon standardised set of outcomes in clinical trials for slowing 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.