Table 5.
Primary outcomes from baseline (2 years) – Change in axial length
| Outcome | Comparison | Number of subjects (primary studies) | Measure of effect (95% CI) | Direction of effect | I2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change in axial length | Undercorrected versus fully corrected spectacles | 94 (1) | MD = 0.06 (− 0.04 to 0.16) | Favours full correction | N/A |
| Bifocal spectacles versus single vision lens spectacles | 89 (1) | MD = − 0.20 (− 0.31 to − 0.09) | Favours bifocal spectacles | N/A | |
| 1% atropine versus placebo | 400 (1) | MD = − 0.36 (− 0.43 to − 0.29) | Favours atropine | N/A | |
| 2% pirenzepine gel versus placebo | 74 (1) | MD = − 0.12 (− 0.29 to 0.05) | Favours pirenzepine | N/A | |
| RGPCLs versus spectacles or SCLs | 394 (2) | MD = 0.03 (− 0.05 to 0.12) | Favours spectacles or SCLs | 0 | |
| Concentric ring bifocal SCLs versus SVSCLs | 128 (1) | MD = − 0.12 (− 0.20 to − 0.04) | Favours concentric ring bifocal SCLs | N/A | |
| Peripheral add multifocal SCLs versus SVLs | 99 (2) | MD = − 0.13 (− 0.20 to − 0.06) | Favours peripheral add multifocal SCLs | 0 | |
| ΟΚ versus SCLs or SVLs | 663 (11) | MD = − 0.27 (− 0.31 to − 0.23) | Favours OK | 0 | |
| PALs versus SVLs | 791 (3) | MD = −0.10 (− 0.20 to 0.00) | Favours PALs | 78 |
CI confidence interval, N/A not applicable, OK Orthokeratology, PALs progressive addition lenses, RGPCLs rigid gas permeable contact lenses, SCLs soft contact lenses, SVLs single vision lenses, SVSCLs single vision soft contact lenses