Self‐refraction, ready‐made glasses and quality of life among rural myopic Chinese children: a non‐inferiority randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study, for the first time, the effect of wearing ready-made glasses and glasses with power determined by self-refraction on children's quality of life. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-masked non-inferiority trial. Children in grades 7 and 8 (age 12-15 years) in nine Chinese secondary schools, with presenting visual acuity (VA) ≤6/12 improved with refraction to ≥6/7.5 bilaterally, refractive error ≤-1.0 D and <2.0 D of anisometropia and astigmatism bilaterally, were randomized to receive ready-made spectacles (RM) or identical-appearing spectacles with power determined by: subjective cycloplegic retinoscopy by a university optometrist (U), a rural refractionist (R) or non-cycloplegic self-refraction (SR). Main study outcome was global score on the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life-42 (NEI-RQL-42) after 2 months of wearing study glasses, comparing other groups with the U group, adjusting for baseline score. RESULTS: Only one child (0.18%) was excluded for anisometropia or astigmatism. A total of 426 eligible subjects (mean age 14.2 years, 84.5% without glasses at baseline) were allocated to U [103 (24.2%)], RM [113 (26.5%)], R [108 (25.4%)] and SR [102 (23.9%)] groups, respectively. Baseline and endline score data were available for 398 (93.4%) of subjects. In multiple regression models adjusting for baseline score, older age (p = 0.003) and baseline spectacle wear (p = 0.016), but not study group assignment, were significantly associated with lower final score. CONCLUSION: Quality of life wearing ready-mades or glasses based on self-refraction did not differ from that with cycloplegic refraction by an experienced optometrist in this non-inferiority trial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".