ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Longitudinal Evaluation of Static and Dynamic Accommodation in Young Children.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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.
- Effect of Binocularity and Depth on Static and Dynamic Accommodation Responses in Young Children.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate longitudinal (3 years) accommodation responses (ARs) in children at high risk (HR) or low risk (LR) for myopia, including a subgroup of children who developed myopia. Methods: Accommodation was measured in young children (n = 92; 7.54 ± 0.97 years) with functional emmetropia (+0.97 ± 0.54 D) at baseline under static and dynamic conditions using an open-field autorefractor. Linear mixed models assessed group differences and the predictor role of accommodation on myopia onset. Results: At baseline and all visits (7 total), the LR group showed greater static AR (P < 0.01) and dynamic amplitude (P < 0.01); these effects remained after adjusting for age (AR P = 0.02; amplitude P = 0.01). After further adjusting for refractive error (spherical equivalent of cycloplegic refraction [M]), risk group differences were no longer significant. Logistic regression indicated AR was a significant predictor of myopia onset when age was included (P < 0.01), but not after accounting for M (P = 0.39), reflecting M's stronger influence. Accommodation was primarily associated with age and M in this cohort with homogeneous ages and M. A Sobel test (P = 0.06) suggested a possible mediating effect for AR on myopia development. Conclusions: A lower AR was associated with a greater myopia risk, but its effect appears secondary to refractive error. Similar patterns were observed for dynamic amplitude. Longitudinal evaluations were minimal, suggesting group differences likely emerged before clinical myopia onset.
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.