Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Saw et al. 2002 Singapore | 5 RCTs in bifocal lenses; 1 RCT in progressive lenses | Systemic review (Level I) | Myopia progression in refraction (S.E.) | BFs and PALs showed no effect, in terms of diopter of change per year. Treatment effect summarised in change of diopter per year BFs vs SVLs: from -0.07 to +0.18D (-ve: Favours SVLs; +ve: Flavours BFs), by 4 RCTs; Forest plot: RCT with the largest scale favours SVLs: -0.07D; the 3 RCTs with smaller scale favours BFs: +0.09 to +0.18D with moderate overlapping in their CI boundaries in favours BF zone. PALs vs SVLs: 0.14D (no statistically difference), by 1 RCT. | - |
Li et al. 2011 China | 3 RCT in bifocal lenses; 6 RCTs in progressive lenses (n=1464) | Systemic review with meta-analysis (Level I) | Myopia progression in refraction (S.E.) | (A) BFs or PALS showed treatment effect of 0.15D at 1 year and 0.24D at 2 years.Meta-analysis treatment results at 1 yearBFs or PALs vs SVLs: 0.15D (95%CI: 0.05 to 0.25), by 5 RCTs n=1058Meta-analysis treatment results at 2 yearBFs or PALs vs SVLs: 0.24D (95%CI; 0.08-0.41), by 7 RCTs n=1244B) Meta-analysis results of 0.25D highlighted in the conclusion part of the review could not be used for interpretation. Such result was derived from combining 9 RCTs' results at the end those studies which were of different study lengths ranged from 1.5 to 3 years. | For (A)Forest plots and the 95%CI distribution patterns of studies involved were not available.For (B)1) Inconsistency: Meta-analysis results were pooled from the end results of the 9 RCTs at their study end without considering the differences in their study lengths.2) Imprecision: The mean difference and 95%Cis results were invalid due to data inconsistency. |
Walline et al. 2011 USA | 4RCTs in bifocals lenses; 3 RCTs in progressive lenses (n=1266) | Systemic review with meta-analysis (Level I) | Myopia progression in refraction (S.E.) | BFs and PALs showed treatment effect of 0.16D and 0.17D respectively at 1 year. Meta-analysis treatment results at 1 year: BFs vs SVLs: 0.16D (95%CI: 0.01 to 0.32), by 4 RCTs n=417 PALs vs SVLs: 0.17D (95%CI: 0.10 to 0.24), by 3 RCTs n=845 BFs or PALs vs SVLs 0.16D (95%CI: 0.07 to 0.24), by 7 RCTs n=1266 | - |
COMET 2 study 2011 USA | 118 myopic children age 8 to 12 with accommodation lag of at least 0.50D and near esophoria of at least 2 pd were randomised to either PALs or SVLs groups. | Prospective RCT (Level II) | Myopia progression in cycloplegic autorefraction (S.E.) | PALs showed statistically significant effect of 0.28D at 3 years. Treatment effect at 3 years: PALs vs SVLs: 0.28D (statistically significant; 95%CI: 0.01 to 0. 55) | - |
Berntsen et al. 2012 USA | 85 myopic children age 6-11 with accommodation lag of at least 1.30D and near esophoria of at least 2pd were randomised to either PALs or SVLs group. | Prospective RCT (Level II) | Myopia progression in cycloplegic autorefraction (S.E.) | Without adjustment, PALs showed no effect at 1 year. With adjustment, PALs show 0.18D effect at 1 year. Treatment effect at 1 year: Unadjusted - PALs vs SVLs: 0.07D (p=0.34; 95%CI: -0.08 to 0.23) Adjusted - PAL vs SVLs: 0.18D (p=0.01; 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.32) | 1) Results were statistically significant only after adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, sex, ethnicity, and the three covariates imbalanced at baseline (axial length, steep keratometry and outdoor activity). No significant difference was shown before adjustment. 2) Short study period. |
Cheng et al. 2014 Canada | 135 Chinese age 8-13 years were randomised to 3 groups - BFs, Prismatic BF or SVLs groups. Only subjects with myopia progression rate of at least 0.50D in preceding year were involved in the study. | Prospective RCT (Level II) | Myopia progression in cycloplegic autorefraction (S.E.) | BFs and Prismatic BFs showed statistically significant effect of 0.81D and 1.05D respectively at 2 years. Treatment effect at 3 years: BFs vs SVLs: 0.81D (P<0.001) Prismatic BFs vs SVLs: 1.05D (P<0.001) | 1) Selection bias: Quasi-randomization 2) Attribution bias: 10% subjects dropped out |
Hasebe et al. 2014 Japan | 303 myopic Asian children age 6-12 years were randomised to 3 groups - PAL +1.0 Add, PAL +1.5D Add or SVL groups. | Prospective RCT (Level II) | Myopia progression in cycloplegic autorefraction (S.E.) | PALs +1.50D showed statistically significant effect of 0.27D at 2 years. PAL +1.0D showed no effect. Treatment effect at 2 year: PALs +1.5D vs SVLs: 0.27D (p=0.017) PALs +1.0D vs SVLs: 0.19D (p=0.094) | 1) Attribution bias: 106 subjects were excluded due to protocol violation in Korea, another 28 subjects dropped out during the study, left with 169 completed the study at 2 years (44% subjects lost in total). |