ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Myopia control efficacy of annular microstructure defocus spectacle lenses: a 1-year multicenter study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- The Comparative Effectiveness of Four Myopia-Control Spectacle Lenses: A Real-World AIPW Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of annular microstructure defocus (AMD) spectacle lenses in controlling myopia progression in children and adolescents.
methodsThis 1-year prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, controlled, single-blind (blind evaluator) trial was carried out in Chinese children and adolescents aged 6 ~ 18 years, with myopia between − 0.50D and − 10.00D and astigmatism ≤ 4.00D. Subjects were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to wear AMD spectacle lenses (n = 1,952) or wear single-vision (SV) spectacle lenses (n = 1,109) based on the choices of the subjects/parents. One-year changes in cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER) by autorefraction and axial length (AL) were used to evaluate the myopia control efficacy of AMD spectacle lenses.
resultsA total of 1,367 subjects (875 in the AMD group and 492 in the SV group) completed cycloplegic SER measurement at the 12-month follow-up visit. 1,791 subjects (1,194 in the AMD group and 597 in the SV group) completed AL measurement at the 12-month follow-up visit. After propensity score matching (PSM), the average change in cycloplegic SER for the subjects in the AMD group was significantly less than that in the SV group (-0.30 ± 0.24D vs. -0.79 ± 0.34D, P<0.001), and the average change in AL for the subjects in the AMD group was significantly slower than that in the SV group (0.18 ± 0.12 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.17 mm, P<0.001), too. The efficacy of AMD spectacle lenses in controlling myopia progression and slowing axial elongation was 62.0% and 53.8%, respectively. Significant interaction effects were observed between age and treatment group (ΔSER: β = -0.037, ΔAL: β = 0.010, both P < 0.05),and between baseline SER and treatment group (ΔSER: β = 0.063, ΔAL: β = -0.020, both P < 0.05).These results indicated that the efficacy of AMD spectacle lenses in slowing myopia progression and axial elongation diminished with increasing age and baseline SER.
conclusionsThe study confirmed the myopia control efficacy of AMD spectacle lenses based on changes in cycloplegic SER or AL over 1 year. Younger subjects with lower levels of myopia benefited more from wearing AMD spectacle lenses.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200066085. Registered 23 November 2022, http://www.chictr.org.cn/.
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.