Myopia control efficacy of peripheral defocus modifying spectacle lenses in children and adolescents: a Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effects of microlens design of peripheral defocus modifying spectacle lenses (PDMSLs) and non-microlens design of PDMSLs on controlling myopia progression in children and adolescents. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and Web of Science databases. The search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CTs) that explored the effects of PDMSLs on myopia control among children and adolescents. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. The published biases of the included studies were evaluated using Egger's test. RESULTS: Nine studies (7 RCTs, 2 CTs) were included, involving 4332 participants in the PDMSLs group and 7317 participants in the single vision lenses (SVLs) group. Meta-analysis showed that PDMSLs with microlens design had lower change in spherical equivalent refraction (SER) than SVLs at 6, 12, 18, and 24mo after wearing glasses, with reductions of 0.19 D (95%CI: 0.14 to 0.24, P<0.00001), 0.36 D (95%CI: 0.25 to 0.46, P<0.00001), 0.43 D (95%CI: 0.32 to 0.55, P<0.00001), and 0.51 D (95%CI: 0.33 to 0.69, P<0.00001), respectively. The changes in axial length (AL) were also lower in PDMSLs compared to SVLs, with reductions of -0.09 mm (95%CI: -0.13 to -0.04, P=0.0002), -0.15 mm (95%CI: -0.21 to -0.08, P<0.00001), -0.27 mm (95%CI: -0.34 to -0.20, P<0.00001), and -0.29 mm (95%CI: -0.38 to -0.20, P<0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the non-microlens group and SVLs in controlling the changes of SER and AL in myopia (both P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The synthesized evidence indicates superior myopia management outcomes with microlens design of PDMSLs compared to both SVLs and non-microlens design of PDMSLs in children and adolescents.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".