MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles on myopia progression in children: three-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

2014· article· en· W2000717540 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Desmond Cheng, George C. Woo, Björn Drobe, Katrina L. Schmid

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCycloplegiaOrthokeratologyOphthalmologyOptometryHeterophoriaAnisometropiaRefractive errorBinocular visionEye diseaseStrabismusOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Myopia is a significant public health problem, making it important to determine whether a bifocal spectacle treatment involving near prism slows myopia progression in children. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles control myopia in children with high rates of myopia progression and to assess whether the treatment effect is dependent on the lag of accommodation and/or near phoria status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 3-year randomized clinical trial was conducted in a private practice. A total of 135 (73 female and 62 male) Chinese-Canadian children (aged 8-13 years; mean [SE] age, 10.29 [0.15] years; mean [SE] myopia, -3.08 [0.10] D) with myopia progression of at least 0.50 D in the preceding year were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments. A total of 128 (94.8%) completed the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Single-vision lenses (control, n = 41), +1.50-D executive bifocals (n = 48), and +1.50-D executive bifocals with 3-Δ base-in prism in the near segment of each lens (n = 46). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Myopia progression (primary) measured using an automated refractor following cycloplegia and increase in axial length (secondary) measured using ultrasonography at intervals of 6 months for 36 months. RESULTS Myopia progression over 3 years was an average (SE) of -2.06 (0.13) D for the single-vision lens group, -1.25 (0.10) D for the bifocal group, and -1.01 (0.13) D for the prismatic bifocal group. Axial length increased an average (SE) of 0.82 (0.05) mm, 0.57 (0.07) mm, and 0.54 (0.06) mm, respectively. The treatment effect of bifocals (0.81 D) and prismatic bifocals (1.05 D) was significant (P < .001). Both bifocal groups had less axial elongation (0.25 mm and 0.28 mm, respectively) than the single-vision lens group (P < .001). For children with high lags of accommodation (≥ 1.01 D), the treatment effect of both bifocals and prismatic bifocals was similar (1.1 D) (P < .001). For children with low lags (<1.01 D), the treatment effect of prismatic bifocals (0.99 D) was greater than of bifocals (0.50 D) (P = .03). The treatment effect of both bifocals and prismatic bifocals was independent of the near phoria status. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Bifocal spectacles can slow myopia progression in children with an annual progression rate of at least 0.50 D after 3 years. These results suggest that prismatic bifocals are more effective for myopic children with low lags of accommodation. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00787579.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations211
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207