lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A randomised clinical trial to assess the effect of a dual treatment on myopia progression: the Cambridge anti-myopia study
Anglia Ruskin University, UK ; Vision Cooperative Research Centre, Australia.
Vision Cooperative Research Centre, Australia ; University of Manchester, UK.
Anglia Ruskin University, UK ; Vision Cooperative Research Centre, Australia.
Anglia Ruskin University, UK ; Vision Cooperative Research Centre, Australia.
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: Ophthalmic & physiological optics, ISSN 0275-5408, E-ISSN 1475-1313, Vol. 33, no 3, 267-276 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a dual treatment modality for myopia, by improving accommodative functions, on myopia progression.

METHODS: A double blind randomised control trial was conducted on 96 subjects. The treatment modality for the trial employed custom designed contact lenses which control spherical aberration in an attempt to optimise static accommodation responses during near-work, and a vision-training programme to improve accommodation dynamics. Myopia progression was assessed over a 2 year period using cycloplegic autorefraction and biometry.

RESULTS: The mean progression was found to be -0.33 Dioptres (D) over the 2 years of the study. There was no interaction between contact lens treatment and vision training treatment at 24 months (p = 0.72). There was no significant treatment effect of either Vision Training or Contact Lens Spherical Aberration control on myopia progression.

CONCLUSIONS: This study is unable to demonstrate that the progression of myopia can be reduced over a 2 year period by either of the two treatments aimed at improving accommodative function. Neither treatment group (contact lens or vision training) progressed at a slower rate over the 2 years of the study than did the appropriate control group.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Vol. 33, no 3, 267-276 p.
National Category
Ophthalmology
Research subject
Natural Science, Optometry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-44816DOI: 10.1111/opo.12035PubMedID: 23662960OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-44816DiVA: diva2:823700
Available from: 2015-06-18 Created: 2015-06-18 Last updated: 2015-06-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Theagarayan, Baskar
In the same journal
Ophthalmic & physiological optics
Ophthalmology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 79 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf