Observational studyScientific reports2026
Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of four myopia control interventions in children: a single-center retrospective study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
To compare the one-year clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of single vision lenses (SVL), Myopia-control spectacle lenses (MCSL), Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), and Repeated Low-Level Red-Light (RLRL) therapy in children within a real-world setting. This retrospective observational cohort study analyzed data from 206 myopic children aged 8-14 years, who had already received one of four myopia control interventions: SVL (n = 50), MCSL (n = 60), Ortho-K (n = 44), or RLRL (n = 52). The primary outcomes were the change in axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) after one year of intervention. The secondary outcome was the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), calculated as the additional cost per 0.1 mm of AL elongation saved compared to the SVL group. All active interventions significantly outperformed SVL in controlling AL elongation (SVL mean: 0.42 mm/year). RLRL exhibited the greatest efficacy (mean AL change: 0.06 mm; 86.0% relative to SVL), with 31% of participants showing axial shortening. Ortho-K (0.18 mm; 57.5% efficacy) and MCSL (0.23 mm; 45.2% efficacy) also demonstrated substantial benefits. Mean annual direct medical costs were $140.93 (SVL), $429.44 (MCSL), $1,108.08 (Ortho-K), and $806.29 (RLRL). ICER analysis identified MCSL as the most cost-effective active intervention ($151.69 per 0.1 mm AL saved), followed by RLRL ($184.13), while Ortho-K yielded the highest ICER ($400.42). In this one-year study, RLRL therapy was observed to have the highest efficacy. However, the finding of axial shortening warrants validation in long-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to elucidate its mechanism and long-term safety. MCSL spectacle lenses were identified as the most cost-effective option, representing a well-balanced profile of efficacy and economic feasibility. Ortho-K, while a highly effective intervention, was associated with a greater financial burden.
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.