Effects of Customized Progressive Addition Lenses vs. Single Vision Lenses on Myopia Progression in Children with Esophoria: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Table 2
Adjusted 2-year myopia progression and mean difference between study groups defined by baseline characteristics.
Baseline characteristics
PAL group
SVL group
Difference ± SE£ (D)
Simultaneous 95% CI
n
Addition lenses# (D)
Mean ± SE (D)
n
Mean ± SE (D)
Gender
Male
19
1.76 ± 0.11
−1.21 ± 0.15
19
−1.40 ± 0.15
0.19 ± 0.11
(−0.04 to 0.42)
Female
25
1.71 ± 0.10
−1.42 ± 0.13
21
−1.67 ± 0.14
0.25 ± 0.14
(−0.03 to 0.53)
Myopic parent$
Without
20
1.81 ± 0.12
−0.92 ± 0.14
17
−1.39 ± 0.16
0.47 ± 0.15
(0.18 to 0.76)†
With
24
1.67 ± 0.13
−1.65 ± 0.13
23
−1.67 ± 0.14
0.02 ± 0.17
(−0.29 to 0.33)
Age (years)
7∼11
20
1.69 ± 0.12
−1.45 ± 0.13
16
−1.67 ± 0.19
0.22 ± 0.13
(−0.07 to 0.52)
11∼14
24
1.77 ± 0.11
−1.21 ± 0.14
24
−1.47 ± 0.13
0.26 ± 0.10
(−0.08 to 0.61)
Baseline accommodative lag to 3 D demand (D)$
Low (<1.00)
23
1.64 ± 0.09
−1.33 ± 0.15
20
−1.43 ± 0.14
0.10 ± 0.16
(−0.25 to 0.44)
High (≥1.00)
21
1.82 ± 0.14
−1.31 ± 0.14
20
−1.67 ± 0.15
0.36 ± 0.11
(0.12 to 0.60)†
Baseline near phoria (33 cm)
2< esophoria ≤6
16
1.57 ± 0.11
−1.34 ± 0.17
22
−1.50 ± 0.14
0.16 ± 0.11
(−0.13 to 0.55)
esophoria >6
28
1.82 ± 0.13
−1.31 ± 0.11
18
−1.61 ± 0.17
0.30 ± 0.10
(0.12 to 0.48)†
Baseline cycloplegic autorefraction (D)$
Less myopia (>−2.00)
26
1.68 ± 0.08
−1.14 ± 0.12
24
−1.47 ± 0.13
0.33 ± 0.09
(0.14 to 0.52)†
More myopia (≤−2.00)
18
1.80 ± 0.13
−1.58 ± 0.15
16
−1.67 ± 0.17
0.09 ± 0.12
(−0.15 to 0.33)
Overall
44
1.73 ± 0.07
−1.32 ± 0.08
40
−1.55 ± 0.09
0.23 ± 0.08
(0.04 to 0.42)†
SER <−0.75 D, determined by noncycloplegic autorefraction; £PAL-SVL; †significant treatment effect ();$significant interaction ();#addition lenses were analyzed among the prescriptions of all time points.
