Individuals with Down syndrome are known to have a greater prevalence of ocular conditions such as strabismus, nystagmus, elevated refractive error, poor accommodative function, elevated higher-order optical aberrations and corneal abnormalities. Related to these conditions, individuals with Down syndrome commonly have reduced best-corrected visual acuity at both far and near viewing distances across their lifespan. This review summarises the various optical sources of visual acuity reduction in this population and describes clinical trials that have evaluated alternative spectacle prescribing strategies to minimise these optical deficits. Although refractive corrections may still have limitations in their ability to normalise visual acuity for individuals with Down syndrome, the current literature provides evidence for eye care practitioners to consider in their prescribing practices for this population to maximise visual acuity. These considerations include accounting for the presence of elevated higher-order aberrations when determining refractive corrections and considering bifocal lens prescriptions, even for young children with Down syndrome.

Despite high discontinuation rates for myopia optical interventions, limited attention has been given to the potential rebound effects post-discontinuation. This systematic review aims to assess the extent of the rebound effects following the cessation of common clinical optical myopia-control interventions in children. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from inception to October 2023. The rebound effects, defined as changes in the axial length or spherical equivalent during and after treatment cessation, were categorized into four levels. These studies encompassed 703 participants and spanned from 2019 to 2023, with durations of treatment and cessation ranging from 6 months to 3.5 years and from 2 weeks to 5 years, respectively. This review, encompassing 14 studies, revealed a predominant strong rebound effect in orthokeratology (8 studies), a weak rebound effect in multifocal soft contact lenses (4 studies), and a variable rebound effect in peripheral-plus spectacle lenses (2 studies). Notably, with the increasing cessation duration, the rebound effects diminished, potentially linked to the reversal of choroidal thickening and the disappearance of peripheral myopic defocus. In conclusion, a temporal trend of rebound effects exists in all three myopia optical interventions, possibly contributing to their myopia control mechanisms.

Myopia is one of the leading causes of visual impairment globally. Despite increasing prevalence and incidence, the associated cost of treatment remains unclear. Health care spending is a major concern in many countries and understanding the cost of myopia correction is the first step eluding to the overall cost of myopia treatment. As cost of treatment will reduce the burden of cost of illness, this will aid in future cost-benefit analysis and the allocation of healthcare resources, including considerations in integrating eye care (refractive correction with spectacles) into universal health coverage (UHC). We performed a systematic review to determine the economic costs of myopia correction. However, there were few studies for direct comparison. Costs related to myopia correction were mainly direct with few indirect costs. Annual prevalence-based direct costs for myopia ranged from $14-26 (USA), $56 (Iran) and $199 (Singapore) per capita, respectively (population: 274.63 million, 75.15 million and 3.79 million, respectively). Annually, the direct costs of contact lens were $198.30-$378.10 while spectacles and refractive surgeries were $342.50 and $19.10, respectively. This review provides an insight to the cost of myopia correction. Myopia costs are high from nation-wide perspectives because of the high prevalence of myopia, with contact lenses being the more expensive option. Without further interventions, the burden of illness of myopia will increase substantially with the projected increase in prevalence worldwide. Future studies will be necessary to generate more homogenous cost data and provide a complete picture of the global economic cost of myopia.

Background: Blue blocking (BB) lenses, including spectacles and intraocular lenses, work by attenuating short-wavelength light. BB glasses are being marketed with the aim to reduce eye fatigue symptoms when using digital devices, improve sleep quality and potentially confer protection from retinal phototoxicity. BB intraocular lenses following cataract surgery may be implanted because they are thought to prevent age-related macular degeneration (AMD) progression.Methods: The present study is a systematic review aiming to analyze BB lenses clinical efficacy in preventing blue light-related ocular disorders, including AMD progression, eye fatigue, and their impact on sleep quality. We searched Medline, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library until May 2020.Results:Although several studies have been performed investigating BB lenses, clinical efficacy for preventing or attenuating the above-mentioned ocular disorders is often theorical or based on laboratory or animal experiments. Conclusions: To date, there is a lack of consistent evidence for a larger-sclale introduction of BB lenses in the routine clinical practice.

We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate when refraction is stable following routine cataract surgery implanting monofocal intraocular lenses. Current advice recommends obtaining new spectacles 4-6 weeks following surgery. Due to advancements in surgical techniques, we hypothesised that refractive stability would be achieved earlier, which could have major short-term improvements in quality of life for patients.
Medline, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched with key words chosen to find articles, which assessed refraction following uncomplicated cataract surgery. Citation chains and the reference lists of all included papers were searched. Unpublished literature was identified using OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu). The review considered studies that measured refraction at regular intervals following surgery until stability was achieved.
The search identified 6,680 papers. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and nine papers were found to fit the criteria, of which five were included in the meta-analysis. The quality of the papers was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) instrument. Meta-analysis of 301 patients\' data of spherical, cylindrical and spherical equivalent correction were performed using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.3) (https://revman.cochrane.org/). Refraction at 1-week versus the gold standard of 4-weeks showed no significant difference for sphere data (effect size and 95% confidence interval of; ES = 0.00, 95% CI: -0.17, 0.17; p = 1.00), cylindrical data (ES = +0.06; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.17; p = 0.31), and spherical equivalent (ES = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.12, 0.10; p = 0.90). Heterogeneity was non-significant (I2  < 25%) for all refractive elements. Data were similar for 2- versus 4-weeks post-surgery. Acquired data from one study highlighted a small number of patients with very unstable cylindrical corrections at 1-week post-operatively.
No statistical difference was found when comparing sphere, cylindrical and spherical equivalent values at 1- and 4-weeks post cataract surgery. This suggests that new glasses could be provided 1-week after surgery. However, from a clinical perspective, a small number of patients (~7%) from an acquired dataset (N = 72) showed very unstable cylindrical corrections at 1-week. Further work is needed to determine why this is the case and how these patients can be detected.

BACKGROUND: Many treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the relative efficacy of these treatments for amblyopia.
METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched from inception to Sep. 2019. Only Randomized clinical trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments were included: refractive correction (spectacles alone), patching of 2 h per day (patch 2H), patch 6H, patch 12H, patch 2H + near activities (N), patch 2H + distant activities (D), atropine (Atr) daily, Atr weekly, Atr weekly + plano lens over the sound eye (Plano), optical penalization and binocular therapy. The reviewers independently extracted the data according to the PRISMA guidelines; assessed study quality by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) expressed as log MAR lines. Direct comparisons and a Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to synthesize data.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies with 3279 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, optical penalization was the least effective of all the treatments for the change of visual acuity, spectacles (mean difference [MD], 2.9 Log MAR lines; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.8-4.0), patch 2H (MD, 3.3; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.3), patch 6H (MD, 3.6; 95% CrI, 2.6-4.6), patch 12H (MD, 3.4; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.5), patch 2H + N (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.5-5.0), patch 2H + D (MD, 3.5; 95% CrI, 2.1-5.0), Atr daily (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly + Plano (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.7-4.7), binocular therapy (MD, 3.1; 95% CrI, 2.0-4.2). The patch 6H and patch 2H + N were better than spectacles ([MD, 0.73; 95% Crl, 0.10-1.40]; [MD, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.19-1.50]).
CONCLUSIONS: The NMA indicated that the efficacy of the most of the examined treatment modalities for amblyopia were comparable, with no significant difference. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine their efficacy and acceptability.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42019119843.

BACKGROUND: Primary objective of this review was to measure compliance with spectacle use in children with refractive errors. Secondary objective was to understand the reasons for non-compliance.
METHODS: The databases searched were Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pubmed. All studies up to March, 2018 were included. The search terms were- ((((((Compliance [Title/Abstract]) OR Adherence [Title/Abstract]) OR Compliant [Title/Abstract]) OR Adherent [Title/Abstract])) AND (((Spectacle [Title/Abstract]) OR Spectacles [Title/Abstract]) OR Eye Glasses [Title/Abstract])) AND ((((Child [Title/Abstract]) OR Children [Title/Abstract]) OR Adolescent [Title/Abstract]) OR Adolescents [Title/Abstract]). Two researchers independently searched the databases and initial screening obtained 33 articles. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting and writing the systematic review. Two reviewers assessed data quality independently using the Quality Assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO). Poor quality studies were those, which had a score of less than 33% on the QATSO tool. Sensitivity analysis was done to determine if poor quality studies effected compliance. Galbraith plot was used to investigate statistical heterogeneity amongst studies. A random effects model was used to pool compliance.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included in the review, of which 20 were included in the quantitative analysis. All the studies were cross sectional. The overall compliance with spectacle use was 40.14% (95% CI- 32.78-47.50). The compliance varied from 9.84% (95% CI = 2.36-17.31) to 78.57% (95% CI = 68.96-88.18). The compliance derived in sensitivity analysis was 40.09%. Reasons for non-compliance were broken/lost spectacles, forgetfulness, and parental disapproval.
CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate remedial measures such as health education and strengthening vision care services will be required to address poor compliance with spectacle use among children.

The prevalence of myopia has increased worldwide in recent decades and now is endemic over the entire industrial world. This increase is mainly caused by changes in lifestyle and behavior. In particular, the amount of outdoor activities and near work would display an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease. Several strategies have been reported as effective. Spectacles and contact lenses have shown only slight results in the prevention of myopia and similarly ortokerathology should not be considered as a first-line strategy, given the high risk of infectious keratitis and the relatively low compliance for the patients. Thus, to date, atropine ophthalmic drops seem to be the most effective treatment for slowing the progression of myopia, although the exact mechanism of the effect of treatment is still uncertain. In particular, low-dose atropine (0.01%) was proven to be an effective and safe treatment in the long term due to the lowest rebound effect with negligible side effects.

Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve sleep quality and potentially confer protection from retinal phototoxicity. The aim of this review was to investigate the relative benefits and potential harms of these lenses.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), recruiting adults from the general population, which investigated the effect of BB spectacle lenses on visual performance, symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue, changes to macular integrity and subjective sleep quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinical trial registers, until 30 April 2017. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
Three studies (with 136 participants) met our inclusion criteria; these had limitations in study design and/or implementation. One study compared the effect of BB lenses with clear lenses on contrast sensitivity (CS) and colour vision (CV) using a pseudo-RCT crossover design; there was no observed difference between lens types (log CS; Mean Difference (MD) = -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01], CV total error score on 100-hue; MD = 1.30 [-7.84, 10.44]). Another study measured critical fusion frequency (CFF), as a proxy for eye fatigue, on wearers of low and high BB lenses, pre- and post- a two-hour computer task. There was no observed difference between low BB and standard lens groups, but there was a less negative change in CFF between the high and low BB groups (MD = 1.81 [0.57, 3.05]). Both studies compared eyestrain symptoms with Likert scales. There was no evidence of inter-group differences for either low BB (MD = 0.00 [-0.22, 0.22]) or high BB lenses (MD = -0.05 [-0.31, 0.21]), nor evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants showing an improvement in symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue. One study reported a small improvement in sleep quality in people with self-reported insomnia after wearing high compared to low-BB lenses (MD = 0.80 [0.17, 1.43]) using a 10-point Likert scale. A study involving normal participants found no observed difference in sleep quality. We found no studies investigating effects on macular structure or function.
We find a lack of high quality evidence to support using BB spectacle lenses for the general population to improve visual performance or sleep quality, alleviate eye fatigue or conserve macular health.