ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Efficacy of different optical zone design with different myopia control for corneal refractive therapy (CRT): a one-year prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare the one-year myopia control effects of orthokeratology (OK) lenses with different optical zone designs in children with varying degrees of myopia.
methodsA total of 200 children with myopia aged 7-12 years with spherical equivalent refraction (SER) ranging from - 0.50 D to - 6.00 D were enrolled. They were non-randomly divided into four groups based on the baseline refractive power and the final choice on OK lenses type: Low myopia 6.0 group, Mod myopia 6.0 group, Low myopia 5.0 group, and Mod myopia 5.0 group, with 50 children in each group. Data from the right eye were used for analysis. We comparatively analysed the one-year follow-up axial length (AL) and AL elongation between each group. We also analyzed the interaction effect between different optical center designs and different initial myopic refractive powers on AL elongation over 1 year by two-way ANOVA, and compared the proportions of non-progressive myopia among the four groups.
resultsAt the 1-year follow-up, AL differed significantly across different myopia subgroups, with Mod myopia groups showing longer AL than low myopia groups, but no significant difference was noted between lens design subgroups. For one-year AL elongation, subgroups with small optical zone designs and those with initial moderate myopia had lower values. A slight interaction effect was observed between lens optical center design and initial myopia severity (F = 6.700, P = 0.010, partial η²=0.033). The one-year AL elongation was 0.280 ± 0.170, 0.148 ± 0.167, 0.154 ± 0.121, and 0.141 ± 0.185 in Low Myopia 6.0 group, Mod Myopia 6.0 group, Low Myopia 5.0 group, and Mod Myopia 5.0 group, respectively; the corresponding non-progressive myopia rates were 62%, 36%, 58%, and 64%. The Mod Myopia 5.0 group presented the slowest AL elongation and the highest non-progressive myopia rate, whereas Mod myopia 6.0 group and Low myopia 5.0 group also showed slower AL elongation and higher non-progressive myopia rates than those of the Low myopia 6.0 group.
conclusionCRT lenses with a small optical zone design exhibited better myopia control compared to those with a larger optical zone design, especially in children with low myopia.
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.