Myopia correction in children: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing rigid gas permeable lenses (RGP) with soft contact lenses (SCL), spectacles and orthokeratology (OK) lenses for myopia control with respect to axial length elongation, spherical equivalent and measures of corneal curvature. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched to September 29, 2015 using the following keywords: rigid gas permeable contact lens; refractive error; and refractive abnormalities. Randomized controlled trials, two-arm prospective studies and retrospective studies of children with myopia treated with RGP lenses compared with spectacles, SCL, and OK lenses were included. Outcome measures were changes of axial length, spherical equivalent, flatter meridian, steeper meridian and corneal apical radius. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Three studies reported axial length change after 2-3 years of treatment with RGP lenses and SCL/spectacles and no difference between the groups was noted (pooled mean difference = -0.077, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.120 to 0.097, p = 0.840). Two studies reported a change of spherical equivalent after 2-3 years of treatment with RGP lenses and SCL/spectacles, and no difference between the groups was noted (pooled mean difference = 0.275, 95% CI: -0.390 to 0.941, p = 0.417). Two studies compared corneal curvature measures between RGP and OK lenses after 3-6 months of treatment and no differences in any measures of corneal curvature were seen. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of RGP lenses and SCL/spectacles on axial length elongation and spherical equivalent and of RGP and OK lenses on corneal curvature in children with myopia was similar.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".