ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Effectiveness of 0.01% atropine and orthokeratology for incipient myopia: a 1-year retrospective study.
Article in BMC 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.
- The predictive accuracy of axial length to corneal curvature radius ratio for myopia in children and adolescents.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate and compare the effectiveness of 0.01% low-dose atropine (LA) and orthokeratology lenses (OK) monotherapy versus single-vision spectacles (SV) in controlling low myopia in clinical settings.
methodsTreatment-naïve Children with a first diagnosis of myopia using single vision spectacles (SV), LA, or OK for at least 1 year were included in this retrospective study. Data from 140 children’s eyes were analyzed at baseline (before the initiation of treatment) and after 1 year of treatment. ANOVA, ANCOVA, and Multiple Liner Regression were undertaken to identify factors significantly associated with axial length (AL) elongation and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) progression over this period.
resultsAfter controlling baseline variates, the adjusted 1-year AL growth of the LA group (0.22 ± 0.54 mm, adjusted p < 0.00) and the OK group (0.30 ± 0.23 mm, adjusted p < 0.00) was slower than that of SV group (0.57 ± 0.41 mm), and there was no statistically significant difference in AL growth between the LA group and the OK group (adjusted p = 0.29). The 1-year SER progression of each treatment group differed significantly (p < 0.00). Specifically, the slowest progression of SER occurred in the group receiving the LA intervention (-0.16 ± 0.38D) compared to the SV group (-0.56 ± 0.42D), followed by the OK group (-0.34 ± 0.34D). Baseline AL (β=-0.299, p < 0.00) and baseline SER (β=-0.255, p < 0.00) were negatively correlated with AL elongation and SER changes, respectively. Age and sex were not significantly associated with AL or SER changes during the study period. After stratification by age, in the subgroup aged 4–7, LA had more significant control effect on AL elongation (p < 0.00) and SER growth (p < 0.00) than SV, while OK only had more significant control effect on AL elongation than SV (P = 0.03). In the subgroup aged 8–12, the control effect of LA and OK on AL elongation and SER growth both became more significant than SV (all P < 0.05).
conclusionsIn the early stage of myopia, LA and OK showed similar efficacy in slowing the AL elongation and were significantly better than SV. For the progression of SER, LA had the best control effect, followed by OK.
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.