ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Myopia-control Spectacle Lenses: Clincial setting Performance from a Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clincial setting effectiveness of three myopia control spectacle lenses, defocus incorporated multiple segments (DIMS), highly aspherical lenslet target (HALT), and cylindrical annular refractive elements (CARE), versus single-vision lenses (SVLs) in attenuating axial elongation and myopic refractive shift in children. Design: A single-center, retrospective cohort study. Participants: A total of 899 subjects (1780 eyes) aged 6-16 years with cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) between -0.50 D and -9.00 D. Subjects were divided into four groups based on prescribed eyewear: SVL (n = 446 eyes), DIMS (n = 523 eyes), HALT (n = 295 eyes), and CARE (n = 516 eyes). Methods: Data were extracted from electronic medical records. Longitudinal changes in axial length (AL) and SE refraction were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models to compare progression rates among the lens types, adjusting for baseline age, sex, parental myopia, and the baseline value of the respective outcome variable. Main Outcome Measures: Annualized rate of progression in AL (mm/year) and SE (D/year). Results: The mean age of our cohort was 12.18 ± 2.73 years, and the mean follow-up time was 12.49 ± 5.71 months. All myopia control lenses significantly slowed AL elongation compared to the SVL group (0.193 mm/year). The adjusted annual AL progression was 0.098 mm/year for DIMS, 0.088 mm/year for CARE, and 0.054 mm/year for HALT ( Conclusions: Highly aspherical lenslet target, DIMS, and CARE effectively slowed progression versus SVL, with HALT showing the greatest AL control. While the retrospective design warrants cautious interpretation, results support the use of all three lenses. Future prospective head-to-head studies are needed to clarify durability and optimal combination strategies. Financial Disclosures: The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.