{"id":1084,"date":"2019-06-07T14:28:31","date_gmt":"2019-06-07T18:28:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/reviewmm\/?p=1084"},"modified":"2020-09-18T14:19:58","modified_gmt":"2020-09-18T18:19:58","slug":"efficacy-comparison-of-16-interventions-for-myopia-control-in-children","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reviewofmm.com\/efficacy-comparison-of-16-interventions-for-myopia-control-in-children\/","title":{"rendered":"Efficacy Comparison of 16 Interventions for Myopia Control in Children"},"content":{"rendered":"
June 6, 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Thanh Pham, MD Presently a number of optical, pharmaceutical and environmental-based strategies are available to slow progression of myopia. The reported evidence of these interventions is generally sound and based on peer reviewed publications and indicate the effectiveness of many of these strategies for slowing myopia. However, determination of interventions that are more effective than others is difficult, as more often than not only a single intervention is assessed in a clinical trial, making it impossible to compare different types of interventions.<\/p>\n In 2016, Huang and co-authors used a statistical approach called \u201cnet-work meta-analysis\u201d that allowed for comparisons between different types of myopia control interventions even though they were not compared directly in a clinical trial. Initially they conducted a comprehensive search of all databases and of the 2435 records identified, they finally chose 30 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving children and conduced for at least 1 year for inclusion in the analysis. A direct head-to\u2013head comparison was conducted using random effects model and heterogeneity assessed. A Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis was conducted and treatments were ranked based on relative effects compared to placebo or standard spectacles.<\/p>\n The analysis found: good effects for myopia control with all doses of atropine (high, moderate and low); moderate effects with pirenzepine, orthokeratology, peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses, cyclopentolate, and prismatic bifocal spectacle lenses; weak effects with progressive addition spectacle lenses, bifocal spectacle lenses, peripheral defocus modifying spectacle lenses and more outdoor time and no effect with rigid gas-permeable contact lenses, soft contact lenses, undercorrected single vision spectacle lenses, and timolol.<\/p>\n The limitations of this analysis are that they were mostly indirect comparisons, included some wide variations in the reported trial populations, for example, age and also there was lack of sufficient data for some treatments. Notwithstanding these limitations, the article highlights the various strategies employed for myopia control and more importantly, indicates the effectiveness of many of these options for slowing myopia.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Ophthalmologist, Hai Yen Eye Care
\nResearch Intern, Brien Holden Vision Institute<\/p>\n