The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy Comparison of 16 Interventions for Myopia Control in Children
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of different interventions to slow down the progression of myopia in children. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 2014. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions for controlling the progression of myopia in children with a treatment duration of at least 1 year for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were mean annual change in refraction (diopters/year) and mean annual change in axial length (millimeters/year). RESULTS: Thirty RCTs (involving 5422 eyes) were identified. Network meta-analysis showed that in comparison with placebo or single vision spectacle lenses, high-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.68 [0.52-0.84]; axial length change: -0.21 [-0.28 to -0.16]), moderate-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53 [0.28-0.77]; axial length change: -0.21 [-0.32 to -0.12]), and low-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53 [0.21-0.85]; axial length change: -0.15 [-0.25 to -0.05]) markedly slowed myopia progression. Pirenzepine (refraction change: 0.29 [0.05-0.52]; axial length change: -0.09 [-0.17 to -0.01]), orthokeratology (axial length change: -0.15 [-0.22 to -0.08]), and peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses (axial length change: -0.11 [-0.20 to -0.03]) showed moderate effects. Progressive addition spectacle lenses (refraction change: 0.14 [0.02-0.26]; axial length change: -0.04 [-0.09 to -0.01]) showed slight effects. CONCLUSIONS: This network analysis indicates that a range of interventions can significantly reduce myopia progression when compared with single vision spectacle lenses or placebo. In terms of refraction, atropine, pirenzepine, and progressive addition spectacle lenses were effective. In terms of axial length, atropine, orthokeratology, peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses, pirenzepine, and progressive addition spectacle lenses were effective. The most effective interventions were pharmacologic, that is, muscarinic antagonists such as atropine and pirenzepine. Certain specially designed contact lenses, including orthokeratology and peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses, had moderate effects, whereas specially designed spectacle lenses showed minimal effect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis
Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Caldwell, D. M., & Ades, A. E. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3767 · Cited by 2,521
Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons
Lumley, T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1201 · Cited by 1,206
Cited by
Myopia Prevention and Outdoor Light Intensity in a School-Based Cluster Randomized Trial
Wu, P.-C., Chen, C.-T., Lin, K.-K., Sun, C.-C., Kuo, C.-N., Huang, H.-M., Poon, Y.-C., Yang, M.-L., Chen, C.-Y., Huang, J.-C., et al. (2018) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.12.011 · Cited by 574
Self-citationIMI – Report on Experimental Models of Emmetropization and Myopia
Troilo, D., Smith, E. L., Nickla, D. L., Ashby, R., Tkatchenko, A. V., Ostrin, L. A., Gawne, T. J., Pardue, M. T., Summers, J. A., Kee, C.-S., et al. (2019) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.18-25967 · Cited by 487
Prousali, E., Haidich, A.-B., Fontalis, A., Ziakas, N., Brazitikos, P., & Mataftsi, A. (2019) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-019-1112-3 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, J., Wen, D., Wang, Q., McAlinden, C., Flitcroft, I., Chen, H., Saw, S. M., Chen, H., Bao, F., Zhao, Y., Hu, L., Li, X., Gao, R., Lu, W., Du, Y., Jinag, Z., Yu, A., Lian, H., Jiang, Q., Yu, Y., & Qu, J.
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 697-708
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2273479788
- Cited by
- 752
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 53.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy Comparison of 16 Interventions for Myopia Control in Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.11.010
- The paper
- Huang, J., Wen, D., Wang, Q., McAlinden, C., Flitcroft, I., Chen, H., Saw, S. M., Chen, H., Bao, F., Zhao, Y., Hu, L., Li, X., Gao, R., Lu, W., Du, Y., Jinag, Z., Yu, A., Lian, H., Jiang, Q., . . . Qu, J. (2016). Efficacy Comparison of 16 Interventions for Myopia Control in Children. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.11.010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.