ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparative efficacy of optical correction methods combined with 0.01% atropine in myopia control.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Evidence on Options and Efficacy of Combination Therapy for Myopia Control-A Narrative Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Visual Training for Myopia Control: An Independent and Additive Inhibitor of Axial Growth.Clinical optometry · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate axial length changes in myopic children treated with different optical correction methods combined with 0.01% atropine eye drops.
methodsThis retrospective study included 366 myopic children (366 eyes) from the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (January 2021-December 2024). Participants were stratified into six groups: orthokeratology (OK, n = 52), OK + atropine (OKA, n = 50), highly aspherical lenslets (HAL, n = 83), HAL + atropine (HALA, n = 69), single-vision spectacles (SP, n = 65), and SP + atropine (SPA, n = 47). Axial length (AL) elongation after one year was compared using one-way analysis of variance.
resultsAfter one year, AL elongation differed significantly across groups (F = 25.345, P < 0.001). The OK (0.25 ± 0.13 mm), OKA (0.18 ± 0.14 mm), HAL (0.16 ± 0.16 mm), HALA (0.08 ± 0.19 mm), and SPA (0.23 ± 0.18 mm) groups all showed significantly less AL elongation than the SP group (0.39 ± 0.20 mm; all P < 0.001). The HALA group demonstrated the strongest effect (P < 0.01 vs. others), and both OKA and HALA outperformed OK (P = 0.036) and HAL (P = 0.004). Adjunctive 0.01% atropine therapy significantly attenuated AL elongation in older children with myopia, with the most pronounced reduction observed in the OKA group (0.03 ± 0.14 mm). Among subjects with higher baseline refractive error, both OKA (0.12 ± 0.13 mm) and SPA (0.16 ± 0.19 mm) groups demonstrated significantly slower AL progression, whereas the HALA (0.12 ± 0.21 mm) cohort exhibited comparatively less effective control of AL growth.
conclusionThe combination therapy of OK, HAL, or SP with 0.01% atropine significantly slowed myopia progression. Subgroup analysis revealed a differential efficacy: OKA and SPA demonstrated superior control in older children with higher myopia, whereas HALA was more effective in older children with low 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.