Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543335›Full record

Trial reportInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026

Does Past Myopia Progression Predict Future Progression?

Wesley T Beaulieu, Michael X Repka, Stacy L Pineles, Danielle L Chandler, Yi Pang, Lori Ann F Kehler, Catherine O Jordan, Katherine A Lee, David B Petersen, Sarah R Hatt and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Wesley T BeaulieuJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, United States.
Michael X RepkaJohns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
Stacy L PinelesJules Stein Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Danielle L ChandlerJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, United States.
Yi PangIllinois College of Optometry, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Lori Ann F KehlerVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Catherine O JordanNationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Katherine A LeeSt. Luke's Children's Ophthalmology, Boise, Idaho, United States.
David B PetersenRocky Mountain Eye Care Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
Sarah R HattMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States.
Susan A CotterSouthern California College of Optometry, Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, California, United States.
Raymond T KrakerJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, United States.
Katherine K WeiseBirmingham School of Optometry, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, United States.
Jonathan M HolmesUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group

Funding

Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group Coordinating CenterU10EY011751 · NEI · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI KRAKER, RAYMOND · 1997 to 2018
$75.2M
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group NetworkUG1EY011751 · NEI · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI Raymond Kraker, Stacy Pineles · 2019 to 2026
$53.7M
NEI NIH HHS U10 EY011751NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY011751
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify the value of using prior changes in spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) and axial length (AL) to predict future myopia progression. Methods: For this post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, we used data from children ages 5 to 12 years with SER -1.00 to -6.00 D who had been randomized 2:1 to 0.01% atropine or placebo eye drops for 24 months. Multivariable linear regression evaluated the association of baseline-to-12-month change in SER and AL versus 12-to-24-month change while controlling for age and SER or AL at 12 months. Treatment groups were pooled for analyses; sensitivity analyses were conducted using only the placebo group. Results: Among 187 children, 136 (73%) with complete data were included. For predicting a 0.50-D-or-more SER increase of myopia in the second 12 months based on observing a 0.50-D-or-more increase of myopia in the first 12 months, the positive predictive value was 42% (19 of 45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29%-57%). Greater baseline-to-12-month SER change was weakly associated with greater 12-to-24-month SER change (0.20 D per additional 1.00 D; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.39; P = 0.03; partial R2 = 0.03). The 95% prediction interval half-width for 12-to-24-month change was ±0.66 D with prior change versus ±0.67 D without (difference = 0.01 D; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.07). Analyses of AL and sensitivity analyses limited to the placebo group were qualitatively similar. Conclusions: Changes in SER and AL of children in the prior 12 months were poor predictors of future myopia progression, limiting their usefulness for clinical decision-making or selecting participants for clinical trials.

Indexed as

MyopiaMyopia, DegenerativeRefraction, OcularAtropineAxial Length, EyeChildChild, PreschoolDisease ProgressionDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMydriaticsOphthalmic SolutionsPredictive Value of TestsAtropineMydriaticsOphthalmic Solutions

Identifiers

PMID41543335
PMCPMC12814979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.