Table 8.

Differences in myopia control effects of different OK lenses (different brands or designs).

Study	Difference in the design of OK lenses	Study time	Country or area	Number of eyes	Criteria	Efficacy of myopia control
Mj Zhu, Hy Feng and Xm Qu [6]	Different brand (hidden)	One year	China	Brand 1: 102 Brand 2: 50 Brand 3: 102	Change in AL	Brand 1 = Brand 2 Brand 2 = Brand 3 Brand 3>Brand 1
Pauline Kang and Helen Swarbrick [7]	BE, Australia Paragon CRT, USA Contex, USA	Two weeks	Australia	BE: 38 CRT: 19 Contex: 19	Relative peripheral refraction changes	Differed minimally among the three OK lens
Ruru Chen, Colm McAlinden et al. [8]	Essence, USA Euclid, USA Lucid, Korea Moldway, China	Two years	China	Essence: 51x2 Euclid: 51x2 Lucid: 46x2 Moldway: 53x2	Change in AL	Essence > Moldway Other intergroups: Equal
Nakamura Y, Kinoshita S. et al. [9]	Menicon, Japan Alpha, Japan Emerald, America	Two years	Japan	Menicon: 24x2 Alpha: 28x2 Emerald: 27x2	Change in AL and refractive error	Menicon = Alpha = Emerald
Lu W, Jin W. et al. [10]	CRT vs. VST (Euclid, America Alpha, Japan Hiline, China)	1.5 years	China	CRT: 263 Euclid: 277 Alpha: 236 Hiline: 225	Change in AL	Euclid, Alpha, Hiline > CRT Euclid = Alpha Alpha = Hiline Euclid > Hiline
Pauné J, Queirós A. et al. [12]	Different back optical zone diameters	One year	Spain	Larger diameter (>5 mm): 36 Smaller diameter (≤5 mm): 35	Change in AL	Smaller diameter > Larger diameter
Guo B. Cho P. et al. [13]	Different back optic zone diameters	One year	China	6 mm: 34 5 mm: 36	Change in AL	Lens with 5 mm diameter > Lens with 6 mm diameter
Loertscher M, Phillips JR. et al. [14]	New multifocal orthokeratology vs. Conventional orthokeratology	1.5 years	New Zealand	30 (Paired-eye study)	Change in AL	New multifocal > Conventional
Wan K, Cho P. et al. [15]	Different compression factors (0.75 D vs. 1.75 D)	Two years	China	0.75 D: 29 1.75 D: 35	Change in AL	Increased compression factors (1.75 D) > Conventional compression factors (0.75 D)