Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41784766›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026

The Impact of Myopia Control Spectacle Lens Designs on Visual Function.

Alfredo Desiato, Hiu Yan Lam, Reena Rani Anand, Inderjit Chatha, Nicola S Logan, Amy L Sheppard, James S Wolffsohn, Deborah Laughton, Leon N Davies

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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. Trial
  2. Spectacle lenses for control of myopia progression in children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  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

9 authors.

Alfredo DesiatoOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9474-9260
Hiu Yan LamOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0009-0000-0640-3327
Reena Rani AnandOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Inderjit ChathaOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Nicola S LoganOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4492-673X
Amy L SheppardOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0035-8267
James S WolffsohnOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4673-8927
Deborah LaughtonSightGlass Vision Inc, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-2653-3970
Leon N DaviesOptometry & Vision Science Research Group, School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. l.n.davies@aston.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1554-0566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo profile the immediate effect of defocus-modulating and contrast-modulating myopia control spectacle lens interventions on visual function.

methodsHealthy myopic (mean spherical equivalent (MSE) -4.25 to -0.50 D) young adults, corrected with contact lenses, wore diffusion optics technology (DOT), defocus incorporated multiple segments (DIMS), highly aspherical lenslets (HAL) and standard single vision (SV) plano trial spectacle lenses, in a prospective, single-visit, double-blind, four-way randomised crossover study. Distance and near high- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, reading performance, accommodative facility, visual search task and accommodative accuracy were assessed foveally through the central zone (CZ) and/or peripheral zone (PZ) of the lenses.

resultsTwenty participants (16 female) were recruited, with a mean (±SD) age of 22.4 (±2.72) years and MSE -2.21 (±1.10) D. VAs through the PZ differed significantly between myopia control lenses and SV, with the HAL and DIMS exhibiting lower VA across all testing conditions (all p <0.05) and DOT demonstrating equivalence to SV with high contrast letters. Contrast sensitivity was similarly reduced for all lenses through the CZ, while HAL and DIMS performed worse than both SV and DOT through the PZ (p <0.01). Near acuity threshold, reading speed and critical print size through the PZ were comparable for SV, DOT and HAL (all p >0.05), whereas DIMS exhibited worse near acuity threshold and critical print size (p <0.001). No significant differences emerged for error score (p = 0.53), accommodative facility refocusing cycles (all p >0.05) or visual search duration (CZ: p = 0.68; PZ: p = 0.35). Accommodative response was similar across lenses (all p >0.05); however, SV had lower variability at distance through the PZ than DOT, HAL and DIMS (p <0.001).

conclusionAll three myopia control lenses exhibited visual performance comparable to standard SV lenses through the CZ. Clinicians should note differences in visual performance, especially VA and reading speed through the lens periphery and their relative testing.

Indexed as

Accommodation, OcularContrast SensitivityEyeglassesMyopiaRefraction, OcularVisual AcuityAdultCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesReadingYoung AdultAccommodative facilityAccommodative responseContrast sensitivityMyopia controlReading performanceVisual acuityVisual performance

Identifiers

PMID41784766
PMCPMC13369762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.