Effect of the combined application of orthokeratology and single-vision spectacles on slowing the progression of high myopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to conduct a meta-analysis about the effect of the combined application of orthokeratology and single-vision spectacles on slowing the progression of high myopia. METHODS: The literature was searched in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Wang Fang Data, CNKI and sinoMed. The Cochrane Handbook was used to evaluate the quality of the included randomized clinical trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the included case-control or cohort studies. The results were analyzed by Revman 5.3. RESULTS: Five studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 2 case-controls, and 1 cohort study) with a total of 360 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The follow-up time was at least 1 year. Combined application of orthokeratology and single-vision spectacles were used in the experimental group. The control group used single-vision spectacles only. The pooled estimates indicated that the standardized mean difference between the 2 groups was -1.46 mm (95% confidence interval: -1.88 to -1.05; P < .05) for axial length elongation and -1.85D (95% confidence interval: -2.40 to -1.31; P < .05) for change in spherical equivalent refraction. No serious adverse events were reported in all studies. CONCLUSION: The combined application of orthokeratology and single-vision spectacles is more effective than single-vision spectacles only on slowing the progression of high myopia.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".