UNASSIGNED: Currently, there is no consensus regarding the management of intermittent exotropia (IXT), which includes both surgical and non-surgical treatment options. Nonsurgical management of IXT has been suggested and includes watchful observation, patching, overminus lenses, prism, and vision therapy/orthoptics. While a significant portion of IXT patients are treated by surgery, it is reported that there is a substantial tendency for reoperation or recurrence of IXT. This paper provides a comprehensive review of non-surgical and surgical treatment options for the IXT.
UNASSIGNED: Search strategies involving combination of keywords including intermittent exotropia, divergence excess, basic exotropia, refractive error, glasses, spectacles, natural history, untreated, observe, occlusion, patch, overminus, overcorrecting minus, prism, vision therapy, orthoptic, anti-suppression, fusion exercise, and surgery were used in Medline. All English articles from 01/01/1900 to 01/09/2020 were reviewed. The reference list of the identified articles was also checked for additional relevant articles. Studies focused on animal models or strabismus associated with neurologic disorders or injury were excluded. The following filters were used for surgical management due to the abundance of reports: full text, randomized controlled trial, review, in the last 5 years.
UNASSIGNED: Appropriate optical correction of refractive error is generally the starting point for all management approaches, but there is a lack of randomized clinical trial data regarding this treatment modality. Randomized clinical trial data indicate that both observation and occlusion are reasonable management options for children 3-10 years old, and there were insufficient data to recommend occlusion for children 12-35 months old. While overminus lenses were found to improve the control of IXT when assessed wearing overminus spectacles, this improvement did not persist after the treatment ended. The result of the only randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of base-in prism indicated that this treatment is no more effective than nonprism spectacles for improving control. A recent randomized clinical trial showed that vision therapy/orthoptics is effective in improving the control of IXT when compared to observation alone. Surgery was found to alter a number of clinical characteristics of IXT, including reducing the distance and near angle of deviation, reducing photophobia, improving health-related quality of life, stereopsis, and the Newcastle Control Score. However, there are no randomized clinical trial data comparing surgery with a control group such as placebo or a no treatment observation group.
UNASSIGNED: Rigorously designed clinical trials to investigate the effectiveness of non-surgical and surgical treatments for intermittent exotropia are needed.

BACKGROUND: Myopia is the most prevalent form of refractive error that has a major negative impact on visual function and causes blurring of vision. We aimed to determine if Repeated Low-Level Red Light (RLRL) treatment is beneficial in treating childhood myopia in terms of axial length (AL), spherical equivalent refraction (SER), and sub foveal choroidal thickness (SFCT).
METHODS: This systematic review was performed on RLRL for treatment of myopia in children compared to single vision spectacles (SVS). We employed the search strategy with key terms myopia and low-level light therapy then we searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. The mean differences (MD) were used to evaluate the treatment effects. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2 statistics and explored by sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our meta-analysis with a total of 833 patients, 407 in treatment group and 426 in control group. At a 3 month follow up period, pooled studies show a statistical difference in AL between RLRL and SVS group (MD = -0.16; 95% CI [-0.19, -0.12], SER (MD = 0.33; 95% CI [0.27, 0.38]), and SFCT (MD = 43.65; 95% CI [23.72, 45.58]). At a 6 month follow up period, pooled studies show a statistical difference in AL between RLRL and SVS group (MD = -0.21; 95% CI [-0.28, -0.15]), SER (MD = 0.46; 95% CI [0.26, 0.65]), and SFCT (MD = 25.07; 95% CI [18.18, 31.95]). At a 12 month follow up period, pooled studies show a statistical difference in AL between RLRL and SVS group (MD = -0.31; 95% CI [-0.42, -0.19]) and SER (MD = 0.63; 95% CI [0.52, 0.73]).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis investigating only RCTs evidence supporting the efficacy of 650 nm RLRL for myopia control in the short term of 3, 6, and 12 months follow up. The present review revealed the clinical significance of RLRL as a new alternative treatment for myopia control with good user acceptability and no documented functional or structural damage. However, the effect of long-term RLRL treatment and the rebound effect after cessation require further investigations.

OBJECTIVE: Myopia is controlled optically with peripheral defocus spectacles, multifocal contact lenses, or orthokeratology lenses. However, it is unknown which optical correction will improve visual performance. This scoping review aimed to identify and summarize studies on various visual functions using optical corrections for myopia control.
METHODS: To develop the search strategy, population (Myopia), concept (visual performance), and context (unrestricted race/region) were used. PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched using the keywords myopia, contrast sensitivity, high and low contrast visual acuity, stereopsis, and optical correction of myopia control. This scoping review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework registry and followed the framework for scoping review outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.
RESULTS: Eight studies (n = 8) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Four were conducted in Europe, two were conducted in China, and one was conducted in Japan and Singapore. Five studies were randomized controlled trials, out of which three used contact lenses and two studies used peripheral defocus spectacles lenses. Studies ranged from one day to 2 years. Three studies that used orthokeratology lenses were prospective study designs. Among the studies that used orthokeratology lenses and contact lenses, two studies measured the contrast sensitivity function with CSV1000 (Vector Vision) under mesopic and photopic conditions, with and without glare. Two studies measured the central and peripheral contrast sensitivity using psychophysics experiments. High and low contrast visual acuity was measured using the Freiburg Vision Test (n = 1) and ETDRS charts (n = 3), and stereopsis was assessed using a random dot stereogram (n = 1). The studies showed a reduction in central and peripheral contrast sensitivity function and low contrast acuity when treated with multifocal contact lenses, orthokeratology lenses, and peripheral defocus lenses compared with single-vision lenses.
CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review found a reduction in central and peripheral contrast sensitivity function, as well as low contrast visual acuity when using various optical corrections for myopia control, while high-contrast visual acuity remained the same. The impact of visual functions may not influence the effectiveness of myopia control. Eye care practitioners should provide awareness to the parent and patient population about the potential visual impact of recent designs for optical corrections of myopia control.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To review the rebound effect after cessation of different myopia control treatments.
METHODS: A systematic review that included full-length randomised controlled studies (RCTs), as well as post-hoc analyses of RCTs reporting new findings on myopia control treatments rebound effect in two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The search period was between 15 June 2023 and 30 June 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyse the quality of the selected studies.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in this systematic review. Unifying the rebound effects of all myopia control treatments, the mean rebound effect for axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) were 0.10 ± 0.07 mm [-0.02 to 0.22] and -0.27 ± 0.2 D [-0.71 to -0.03] after 10.2 ± 7.4 months of washout, respectively. In addition, spectacles with highly aspherical lenslets or defocus incorporated multiple segments technology, soft multifocal contact lenses and orthokeratology showed lower rebound effects compared with atropine and low-level light therapy, with a mean rebound effect for AL and SER of 0.04 ± 0.04 mm [0 to 0.08] and -0.13 ± 0.07 D [-0.05 to -0.2], respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the different treatments for myopia control produce a rebound effect after their cessation. Specifically, optical treatments seem to produce less rebound effect than pharmacological or light therapies. However, more studies are required to confirm these results.

The growing incidence of myopia worldwide justifies the search for efficient methods of myopia prevention. Numerous pharmacological, optical, and lifestyle measures have already been utilized, but there remains a need to explore more practical and predictable methods for myopia control. This paper presents a review of the most recent studies on the prevention of myopia progression using defocus-incorporated multiple-segment spectacle lenses (DIMSsl), repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy, and a combination of low-dose atropine (0.01%) with orthokeratology lenses.

Despite being easily corrected with eyeglasses, over two-thirds of the world\'s child population presents with vision impairment (VI) due to uncorrected refractive errors. While systematic reviews have shown that VI can significantly impact children\'s depression and anxiety, none have reviewed the existing literature on the association between spectacle correction and well-being. This review aims to address this knowledge gap.
The main outcome measures were i) cognitive and education well-being which included mathematics and english literacy, reading fluency, school function, academic performance and grades; ii) psychological and mental health well-being which included physical anxiety, learning anxiety and mental health test scores and iii) quality of life.
We searched eight databases for articles published between 1999 to 2021 that assessed the associations between spectacle correction and children\'s (0 to 18 years) well-being. There were no restrictions on language or geographic location. Two reviewers independently screened all publications using validated quality checklists. The findings of the review were analysed using narrative synthesis. [PROSPERO CRD42020196847].
Of 692 records found in the databases, six randomised control trials, one cohort, one cross-sectional and one qualitative study (N = 9, 1.3%) were eligible for analysis. Data were collected from 25 522 children, 20 parents and 25 teachers across the nine studies. Seven were rated as good quality (67 to 100% of quality criteria fulfilled), and two were satisfactory (33 to 66% of quality criteria fulfilled). Spectacle correction was found to improve children\'s educational well-being (n = 4 very strong evidence; n = 2 strong evidence), quality of life (n = 1, very strong evidence) and decrease anxiety and increase mental health scores (n = 1, strong evidence).
Evidence suggests that spectacle correction improves children\'s cognitive and educational well-being, psychological well-being, mental health, and quality of life. More research is needed, given the paucity of published literature and the focus on only three aspects of well-being.

To compare the treatment efficacy of childhood myopia control optical interventions [spectacles, soft contact lenses (SCLs) and orthokeratology (OK) lenses], explore the consistency of treatment efficacies during the treatment period and evaluate the impact of baseline spherical equivalent refraction (SER), axial length (AL) and age on the treatment effect. A literature search of EMBASE, PubMed and Google Scholar databases identified 220 articles published between January 2000 and April 2022, which reported the treatment efficacy by differences in the SER and AL change between intervention and control groups. Thirty-five articles were included in the analysis. Treatment effect sizes (ESs) were calculated, where more positive and negative directions indicated greater treatment efficacy for SER and AL respectively. For SER, the ESs with peripheral add design spectacles (0.66) and SCLs (0.53) were large but not significantly different between treatment types (p = 0.69). For AL, ESs with peripheral add design spectacles (-0.37), SCLs (-0.55) and OK lenses (-0.93) were large, but OK lenses had a significantly greater effect than peripheral add design spectacles (p ≤ 0.001). ESs were large during the first 12 months of treatment for all interventions [peripheral add design SCLs and OK (F ≥ 5.39, p ≤ 0.01), peripheral add design spectacles (F = 0.47, p = 0.63)] but reduced towards the end of 24-36 months of treatment. Baseline SER had an impact on the treatment effect with peripheral add design spectacles only. Optical interventions are efficacious in controlling childhood myopia progression. However, treatment effects were largest only during the first 12 months of treatment and reduced over time.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze critically the clinical trials on presbyopia correction with contact lenses (CLs) to investigate the quality of the research performed.
METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed database on clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of the presbyopia correction with different CLs, including multifocal or simultaneous vision contact lenses (MCLs). After a comprehensive analysis of the relevant publications found, quality assessment of such publications was performed by means of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool according to the five types of evaluations: MCL versus spectacles, MCL versus pinhole CLs, MCL versus monovision, comparison between MCL designs, and MCL versus extended depth of focus CLs.
RESULTS: A total of 16 clinical trials were selected for evaluation. All evaluated studies addressed a clearly focused research question and were randomized, with a crossover design in most of the cases. Blinding was not possible in all cases due to the physical appearance of some of the CLs evaluated (pinhole or hybrid designs). Most of studies analyzed reported outcomes with complete data, providing the statistical tests used and the P -values, but some of the authors did not provide the statistical power associated to the sample size evaluated. The small sample size in some trials as well as the scarce information about the effect of addition on visual performance was the main limitations found in the peer-reviewed literature revised.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a high-quality scientific evidence supporting the use of presbyopia-correcting CLs, with several randomized controlled clinical trials conducted to this date.

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to control myopia progression. In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were mean differences (MD) between treatment and control groups in myopia progression (D) and axial length (AL) elongation (mm).
The following interventions were found to be effective (p < 0.001): highly aspherical lenslets (HAL, 0.80 D, 95% CI, 0.77-0.83; -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.34), MiSight contact lenses (0.66 D, 95% CI, 0.63-0.69; -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.27), low dose atropine 0.05% (0.54 D, 95% CI, 0.38-0.70; -0.21 mm, 95% CI-0.28 to -0.14), Biofinity +2.50 D (0.45 D, 95% CI, 0.29, 0.61; -0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.15), defocus incorporated multiple segments [DIMS] (0.44 D, 95% CI, 0.42-0.46; -0.34 mm, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.33) and ortho-k lenses (-0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -01.5).
Low-dose atropine 0.01% was not effective in reducing AL progression in two studies. Treatment efficacy with low-dose atropine of 0.05% showed good efficacy. Spectacles (HAL and DIMS) and contact lenses (MiSight and Biofinity) may confer a comparable treatment benefit compared to atropine, to slow myopia progression.