ArticleJournal of global health2026
Cost-effectiveness of monotherapy and combination therapy for myopia control in Chinese children.
Article in Journal of global health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myopia poses a major public health and economic burden in China, necessitating cost-effectiveness evaluations of control strategies. We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of single/combined myopia control in children and adolescents to optimise strategies. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of myopia control interventions in Chinese children (aged 6-18 years). Annual changes in axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) were the primary outcomes. Additionally, we used a decision-analytic Markov model with clinical and cost data from China to evaluate 16 myopia control strategies for eight-year-old children over eight years from a patient perspective, with 3% discounting. Strategies included monotherapies and combined therapies. Main outcomes were incremental cost per unit reduction in myopic shift (i.e. SER) or AL elongation, compared with single-vision lenses (SVLs). Markov cohort analysis simulated the proportion of individuals progressing to high myopia under various strategies. We assessed robustness through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We performed subgroup analyses by onset age (6, 10, and 12 years) and regional economic development. Results: For SER reduction, outdoor activity was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = USD -18.29/dioptre (D)). At higher willingness-to-pay thresholds, 0.01% atropine combined with defocus incorporated multiple segment (DIMS) (USD 660.74/D) and repeated low-level red-light therapy (RLRL) (USD 895.36/D) were cost-effective. For AL reduction, outdoor activity (USD -42.68/mm) and DIMS (USD 672.73/mm) were cost-effective at lower thresholds, while RLRL (USD 2011.32/mm) was preferred at higher thresholds. Compared with monotherapy, combination interventions improved preventive efficacy against high myopia. Subgroup analyses confirmed that the cost-effectiveness ranking was preserved across onset ages and regional economic settings. Conclusions: Under limited budget conditions, outdoor activities and defocus spectacles represent advantageous cost-effective treatment options. When the budget is sufficient, RLRL may be considered a promising option pending confirmation of its long-term safety and effectiveness, and 0.01% atropine combined with DIMS is the preferred cost-effective option. Our analysis provides evidence-based guidance for clinicians and families in selecting effective myopia control strategies.
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.