SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
A systematic review of the study design and statistical practices in randomized controlled trials on myopia treatment (2019-2023).
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMyopia is a global public health concern affecting billions worldwide, with its prevalence rising at an alarming rate. High-quality RCTs for evaluating new interventions to slow myopia progression are needed. This systematic review aims to analyze the study designs and statistical practices of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on myopia treatment published between 2019 and 2023.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed and Embase was conducted in February 2024 and May 2025 using keyword-based and MeSH term-based queries, filtered for RCTs published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023. All retrieved studies were manually screened to ensure they reported primary results from RCTs investigating myopia treatment or progression control, assessing at least one intervention for efficacy and/or safety.
results73 trials performed in more than 15 countries across 36 journals were identified. The most common interventions involved atropine (n = 19, 26.0%), lens (n = 22, 30.1%), surgery (n = 9, 12.3%), and light therapy (n = 8, 11.0%). These trials used one-eye design (n = 31, 42.5%), two-eye design (n = 27, 37.0%), paired-eye design (n = 9, 12.3%), mixed-eye design (n = 3, 4.1%). The most common primary outcomes were spherical equivalent refraction (n = 48, 65.8%), axial length (n = 45, 61.6%), and uncorrected distance visual acuity (n = 10, 13.7%). 66 trials (91.7%) utilized cycloplegia for measuring refractive error. Among 39 trials involving two eyes, inter-eye correlation was accounted for in the analysis of 23 trials (59.0%), with 8 (34.8%) using a paired t-test, 12 (52.2%) using a mixed effects model, and 3 (13.0%) using generalized estimating equations. Among 60 trials with missing data, 24 trials (40.0%) did not mention any statistical methods for missing data.
conclusionThe methodological rigor of myopia RCTs can be improved by carefully considering eye study designs, employing robust statistical techniques, ensuring cycloplegia for refractive error measurements, and properly accounting for inter-eye correlation and missing data when applicable. Standardizing these practices will improve the quality of future myopia trials.
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.