ArticleBiomedical optics express2026
Evaluating retinal image quality for myopia control lenses in a synthetic accommodative wavefront model.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2026. 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.
- Visual and Physiological Optics: introduction to the joint feature issue inBiomedical optics express · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study uses a wavefront model to evaluate the effects of contact lenses on retinal image quality (RIQ) as a function of target vergence (TV). Three hundred synthetic eyes were generated using an accommodative wavefront model to simulate the changes in RIQ with accommodation. The synthetic eyes wavefronts were computationally combined using direct wavefront summation with two myopia control CLs. One has a +2.00D treatment zone dual-focus (DF) design (MiSight), and the other has an extended depth of focus (EDOF) design (Mylo). Peak image quality was calculated for the naked eye, with CLs in the relaxed state, and for an accommodative demand of -2.5D. Additionally, the predicted accommodative response (change in accommodative response that maximizes RIQ) was calculated. The mean RIQ (normalized between 0 and 1) for the relaxed eye was 0.42 ± 0.10 in the naked eye. It decreased to 0.26 ± 0.05 with the DF and threefold to 0.15 ± 0.04 with the EDOF. For a TV = -2.5D, the RIQ was 0.34 ± 0.09 in the naked eye condition, 0.24 ± 0.07 with the DF, and 0.19 ± 0.03 with the EDOF. For the TV, the CL's effective add power, the accommodative RIQ showed a secondary peak, with RIQs of 0.08 ± 0.03 (DF) and 0.12 ± 0.04 (EDOF). The theoretical accommodative response (AR) of the naked eye was 2.33 ± 0.20 D, while with the DF and EDOF, it was 2.23 ± 0.39 D and 1.75 ± 0.22 D, respectively. Both myopia control CLs reduced RIQ at a TV of 0 D. At a TV = -2.5D; both lenses caused a secondary peak in the RIQ through focus. With EDOF, the secondary peak was less than 0.1 D from the maximum peak, likely due to its EDOF design. The theoretical AR was reduced with both myopia control CLs, 0.27 D for DF CLs and 0.75 D for EDOF CLs. These results indicate that both lenses impose significant limitations on RIQ and theoretical AR, align with findings from previous studies on subjective optical performance, and validate the model as a useful testing tool.
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.