Cochrane · systematic review · CD004916
Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children
Walline, JJ, Lindsley, KB, Vedula, SS, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
17
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 17.6%Ungraded 1 · 5.9%Very low 1 · 5.9%Low 6 · 35.3%Moderate 6 · 35.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children
Population: children with myopia (nearsightedness)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Undercorrected vs fully corrected spectacles | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 142 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Multifocal vs single vision lens spectacles | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1463 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Peripheral plus spectacles vs single vision lens spectacles | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 597 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Bifocal vs single vision soft contact lenses | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 300 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Rigid gas permeable contact lenses vs spectacles or soft contact lenses | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 420 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Orthokeratology contact lenses vs single vision lenses | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Spherical aberration soft contact lenses vs single vision soft contact lenses | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 209 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Antimuscarinic agents vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 629 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Atropine vs tropicamide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 196 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Systemic 7‐methylxanthine vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 77 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Timolol drops vs no drops | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Atropine plus multifocal spectacles vs placebo plus SVLs | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 191 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Atropine plus bifocal spectacles vs cyclopentolate plus SVLs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Bifocal spectacles vs SVLs with timolol drops | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 97 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Tropicamide plus bifocal spectacles vs SVLs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Comparison (intervention vs comparator) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |