Open Access
Special Issue  |   April 2021
IMI 2021 Reports and Digest – Reflections on the Implications for Clinical Practice
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • James S. Wolffsohn
    School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Monica Jong
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Discipline of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
  • Earl L. Smith, III
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Serge R. Resnikoff
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  • Jost B. Jonas
    Department of Ophthalmology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Nicola S. Logan
    School of Optometry, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Ian Morgan
    State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Centre, Sun Yatsen University, Guangzhou, China
    Research School of Biology, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  • Padmaja Sankaridurg
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  • Kyoko Ohno-Matsui
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2021, Vol.62, 1. doi:
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      James S. Wolffsohn, Monica Jong, Earl L. Smith, Serge R. Resnikoff, Jost B. Jonas, Nicola S. Logan, Ian Morgan, Padmaja Sankaridurg, Kyoko Ohno-Matsui; IMI 2021 Reports and Digest – Reflections on the Implications for Clinical Practice. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(5):1.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

The International Myopia Institute's (IMI) mission is to advance research, education, and management of myopia to decrease future vision impairment and blindness associated with increasing myopia. Its approach is to bring together scientists, clinicians, policymakers, government members, and educators into the field of myopia to stimulate collaboration and sharing of knowledge. The latest reports are on pathologic myopia, the impact of myopia, risk factors for myopia, accommodation and binocular vision in myopia development and progression, and the prevention of myopia and its progression. Together with the digest updating the 2019 International Myopia Institute white papers using the research published in the last 18 months, these evidence-based consensus white papers help to clarify the imperative for myopia control and the role of environmental modification initiatives, informing an evidence-based clinical approach. This guidance includes who to treat and when to start or stop treatment, and the advantages and limitations of different management approaches.

Public health is defined as “the art and science of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts of society.”1 Myopia has a major impact on eye health and hence quality of life and disability, particularly later in life, owing to its association with both direct and indirect damage to the chorioretina, optic nerve, and the crystalline lens.2 The global burden of myopia is growing, with nearly 30% of the world population currently myopic and an expectation that this number may increase to nearly one-half of the world's population in 2050.3 Over this time period, approximately 10% of the world's inhabitants will have high myopia, translating to nearly 1 billion people.3 Uncorrected myopia is the most common cause of avoidable distance visual impairment, and myopic macular degeneration has already become the leading cause of uncorrectable vision loss in some parts of the world.4 
Although pathologic myopia is associated with higher degrees of myopic refractive error (see the International Myopia Institute [IMI] Pathological Myopia Report),5 its complications, especially posterior staphyloma, can also occur in eyes with lower degrees of myopia. There are no distinct cut-off values for refractive error or axial length when pathology occurs; rather, any increase in axial length in a myopic eye (with associated change in refractive error) increases the risk of pathology.2 The assumption that interventions in childhood myopia progression will decrease the prevalence of pathologies later in life is unsubstantiated (but likely),6 owing to the lack of data charting the long-term course between childhood myopia progression and the onset of pathologic changes such as myopic maculopathy. Myopia-associated pathologies also vary with patient characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, and the level of myopia,7,8 confounding direct associations without longitudinal data. It has been hypothesized that the stimulus for the current myopia epidemic, particularly the increase in the prevalence and degree of common childhood myopia, is due to ongoing changes in our behavior and environment, rather than being driven genetically. Genetic and prevalence data suggest that extreme myopia has a different origin than the more commonly seen childhood myopia, which is most likely largely driven environmentally.911 In this respect, studies already demonstrate a strong association between the level of refractive error and myopic maculopathy across a wide range of myopic refractive errors,7,8 and recent 6- and 12-year prospective longitudinal studies from Japan reported significant increases in the prevalence of different levels of myopia and associated pathology.12,13 Hence, the incidence of myopia-related ocular complications and permanent vision impairment is very likely to significantly increase alongside the growing prevalence of myopia globally.3 
The IMI Impact of Myopia Report14 summarizes recent research on the increasing prevalence of myopia, including the disproportionally greater increase in high myopia and the lifetime manifestations of myopia. In addition, it highlights the considerable direct health expenditures and indirect costs such as lost productivity and reduced quality of life associated with myopia. 
Environmental Modification
The IMI Risk Factors for Myopia Report15 identifies the difficulties in “untangling” the risk factors for the development and progression of myopia from current research; however, education and time spent outdoors were identified as the key factors. They conclude that there is a large body of consistent evidence of a causal association between the higher prevalence and degree of myopia with an increasing intensity and duration of education, but the mechanism involved is still unclear. The current evidence implicating digital devices is sparse and far from consistent. No interventions in decreasing nearwork have been validated in controlled trials. Strong evidence has been accumulated for time spent outdoors (principally lighting levels) decreasing the prevalence and progression of myopia,1619 possibly owing to dopamine release, decreasing the impact of other risk factors such as parental myopia20 and higher levels of nearwork.21 School-based intervention trials have shown that an increase in time outdoors of 40 to 80 minutes per day produces a significant decrease in the incidence of myopia.2224 Interestingly, one study suggested modest increases in class-room lighting strongly inhibited the development of myopia,25 but replication of this finding is needed. 
It should be noted that, unlike other epidemics, such as the increase in obesity and diabetes, myopic environmental risk factors are driven largely by a desire to improve the prospects of children and the quality of life of nations, by increasing the level of education. In addition, the success of less divisive public health programs to decrease obesity and diabetes has been limited26,27; hence, national public health programs focused on decreasing the impact of myopia by environmental modifications alone cannot be relied on to decrease significantly the impact of myopic epidemic, and eye care practitioners have a key role in improving the future eye health of their patients including providing holistic advice about increasing time spent outdoors. 
An Evidence-Based Clinical Approach
Who to Treat and When to Start
The IMI have defined premyopia as “A refractive state of an eye of ≤ +0.75 D and > –0.50 D in children where a combination of baseline refraction, age, and other quantifiable risk factors provide a sufficient likelihood of the future development of myopia to merit preventative interventions.”28 A cycloplegic refraction should be performed to avoid misclassification,29 unless the practitioner can be assured the eye is unaccommodated.30,31 Premyopia can be predicted as early as 6 years of age by a refractive error of <+0.75 diopters [D] (<+0.50 D in a 7- to 8-year-old child; <+0.25 D in a 9- to 10-year-old child; and emmetropia in an 11-year-old child) with a high degree of confidence.32 Although the number of myopic parents is a risk factor for myopic progression (odds ratio in 6- to 8-year-olds: 1.4× for 1 parent and approximately 2.3× for 2 parents), along with harder to measure ocular biometry factors such as the AC/A ratio (approximately 1.25×), axial length (2.0–2.5×) and peripheral refraction (1.4×), a study found refractive error alone best predicts the risk of future myopia.32 A recent study in the UK also found axial length (>23.07 mm) at baseline (odds ratio, 2.5×) at the age of 6 years and at least one myopic parent (odds ratio 6.3×) as predictive of progression to myopia by age 16 years along with a refraction of <+0.63 D.33 Although binocular vision status is important in children to optimize visual clarity and minimize eye strain, and therefore should be assessed and managed if necessary, evidence for any role in myopia development and progression is limited (see the IMI Accommodation and Binocular Vision in Myopic Development and Progression report).34 
Management Approach
Advising on maximizing time spent outdoors is good for all children's general mental health35 as well as decreasing the incidence and progression of myopia,1619 especially in winter when myopic progression is greater.36 However, as identified elsewhere in this article, this factor will have a limited effect on decreasing the incidence of myopia or its progression in those who are already myopic owing to societal factors. For those who have premyopia, or who have low myopia (<–0.5 D), a refractive correction would not be suitable so advice should be given as to the need for regular eye examinations and to prepare the patient and their parents/carers. If there is ≥–0.50 D of myopia, in consultation with the child´s caregiver, consideration for a refractive and/or pharmaceutical correction should be considered (see the IMI Prevention of Myopia and Its Progression report)37 
  • Orthokeratology – effective from –0.50 to –4.00 D38,39 and up to –3.50 D of astigmatism,40 and can be used in conjunction with an optical correction worn during the day for higher myopia (>6.0 D).41 However, it requires overnight contact lens wear with its associate risks of microbial keratitis.42 A desire for children to be free of a refractive correction during the day is key in the success of orthokeratology.43
  • Soft myopia control multifocal contact lenses – effective commercially available lenses are now on the market in a wide range of powers. Up to 6 years of clinical trials demonstrate good safety and efficacy.4448 Daily disposable modality has a risk of microbial keratitis of about 10× less than that of orthokeratology treatment.49
  • Myopia control spectacle lenses – have become commercially available with variable efficacy reported with data for up to 2 years in clinical trials, but there has been limited research conducted to date.50,51
  • Atropine – the most appropriate dose has yet to be determined, but based on current research is within the range 0.01% to 0.05%52,53; however, the use of a pharmaceutical depends on the availability and risks, which include untested long-terms effects.
  • Combination therapy seems to be more effective than a single treatment approach, and so should be considered if myopic progression continues.54,55
  • Sequential treatment modalities – the effectiveness of current treatments appears to decrease with time, providing approximately a cumulative maximum approximately 1.0 D decrease in refractive error or approximately +0.44 mm decrease in axial length.6,56 However, treatment modalities seem to have differing mechanisms of action, so it is possible that using different modalities sequentially may have a greater cumulative effect, although this has yet to be researched.
It has been argued that, to monitor myopic progression, axial length is a more reliable measure than even cycloplegic refractive error and it is the principal risk factor for myopia-associated pathology.6 However, instrumentation using partial coherence interferometry/optical coherence tomography or optical low coherence reflectometry (essentially the same technique, but using a laser or a super-luminescent diode respectively) which have a suitable resolution of approximately 0.01 mm or <0.05 D,57 are still relatively expensive and not yet commonplace in clinical practice. 
When to Stop
There are few data on when myopia stops progressing. Progression has been noted in young adults58 and approximately one-third of myopia adults only develop myopia after 15 years of age.59 The mean age of refractive error stabilization for early childhood onset myopic seems to be around 16 years of age (perhaps about 1 year younger in females than males),60,61 but there is considerable variability. Axial length seems to take much longer to stabilize, with 90% stabilizing by 21 years of age in one longitudinal study.60,62 Hence, careful monitoring of patients after ceasing treatment is prudent. Fortunately, in controlled trials, a clinically significant rebound effect has only been observed after ceasing higher dose atropine treatment63,64 and perhaps in young children with orthokeratology.65 
There is more than sufficient evidence to warrant the adoption of myopia prevention and control measures in clinical practice. Although there remain gaps in academic knowledge about mechanism of action and long-term outcomes, the benefits outweigh the risks if they are appropriately managed.66 More research on the effectiveness and safety of combination and sequential treatment modalities would further enhance patient management options. Eye care practitioners have a key role to play in preventing visual impairment in future generations and must become more proactive67 in the identification and treatment of myopia. 
Supported by the International Myopia Institute. The publication costs of the International Myopia Institute reports were supported by donations from the Brien Holden Vision Institute, Carl Zeiss Vision, Cooper Vision, Essilor, and Alcon. 
Disclosure: J.S. Wolffsohn, Alcon (R), Allergan (R), Atia Vision (C), Contamac (C), CooperVision (C), Essilor (C), Johnson & Johnson (R), Nevkar (C), Novartis (C), Rayner (C), Théa pharmaceuticals (C); M. Jong, None; E.L. Smith III, Essilor of America (C), Treehouse Eyes (C), SightGlass Vision (C), Acucela (C), Nevakar (C), Zeiss (P); S.R. Resnikoff, Nevakar (C), Brien Holden Vision Institute (C); J.B. Jonas, Europäische Patentanmeldung 16 720 043.5 and Patent application US 2019 0085065 A1 „Agents for use in the therapeutic or prophylactic treatment of myopia or hyperopia”); N.S. Logan, CooperVision (F, R), Essilor (R), ZEISS (F), Hoya (F); I. Morgan, None; P. Sankaridurg, BHVI (E), co-inventor on multiple patents related to myopia (P); K. Ohno-Matsui, Santen (C), Nevakar (C) 
Acheson ED . On the state of the public health [the fourth Duncan lecture]. Public Health. 1988; 102: 431–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Flitcroft DI . The complex interactions of retinal, optical and environmental factors in myopia aetiology. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2012; 31: 622–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016; 11: 00025–7.
Naidoo KS, Fricke TR, Frick KD, et al. Potential lost productivity resulting from the global burden of myopia: systematic review, meta-analysis, and modeling. Ophthalmology. 2019; 126: 338–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ohno-Matsui K, Wu P-C, Yamashiro K, et al. IMI Pathologic Myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62(5): 5.
Brennan NA, Toubouti YM, Cheng X, Bullimore MA. Efficacy in myopia control. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2020; 27: 100923. [CrossRef]
Xiao O, Guo X, Wang D, et al. Distribution and severity of myopic maculopathy among highly myopic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018; 59: 4880–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Coco-Martin RM, Belani-Raju M, de la Fuente-Gomez D, Sanabria MR, Fernandez I. Progression of myopic maculopathy in a Caucasian cohort of highly myopic patients with long follow-up: a multistate analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020; 259: 81–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jonas JB, Xu L, Wang YX, , et al. Education-related parameters in high myopia: adults versus school children. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0154554. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Meguro A, Yamane T, Takeuchi M, et al. Genome-wide association study in Asians identifies novel loci for high myopia and highlights a nervous system role in its pathogenesis. Ophthalmology. 2020; 127: 1612–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nakao SY, Miyake M, Hosoda Y, et al. myopia prevalence and ocular biometry features in a general Japanese population: the Nagahama study. Ophthalmology. 2020 Aug 21 [Epub ahead of print].
Ueda E, Yasuda M, Fujiwara K, et al. Trends in the prevalence of myopia and myopic maculopathy in a Japanese population: the Hisayama study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: 2781–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Igarashi-Yokoi T, Shinohara K, Fang Y, et al. Prognostic factors for axial length elongation and posterior staphyloma in adults with high myopia: a Japanese observational study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020; 225: 76–85. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sankaridurg P, Tahhan N, Kandel H, et al. IMI Impact of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62(5): 2.
Morgan I, Wu P-C, Ostrin L, et al. IMI risk factors for myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62(5): 3.
Eppenberger LS, Sturm V. The role of time exposed to outdoor light for myopia prevalence and progression: a literature review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020; 14: 1875–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
French AN, Ashby RS, Morgan IG, Rose KA. Time outdoors and the prevention of myopia. Exp Eye Res. 2013; 114: 58–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lingham G, Mackey DA, Lucas R, Yazar S. How does spending time outdoors protect against myopia? A review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020; 104: 593–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Xiong S, Sankaridurg P, Naduvilath T, et al. Time spent in outdoor activities in relation to myopia prevention and control: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017; 95: 551–66, doi:10.1111/aos.13403. Epub 2017 Mar 2. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jones LA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML, Zadnik K. Parental history of myopia, sports and outdoor activities, and future myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 3524–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, et al. Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115: 1279–85. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
He M, Xiang F, Zeng Y, et al. Effect of time spent outdoors at school on the development of myopia among children in China: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 314: 1142–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wu PC, Tsai CL, Wu HL, Yang YH, Kuo HK. Outdoor activity during class recess reduces myopia onset and progression in school children. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1080–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jin JX, Hua WJ, Jiang X, et al. Effect of outdoor activity on myopia onset and progression in school-aged children in northeast China: the Sujiatun Eye Care Study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015; 15: 73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hua WJ, Jin JX, Wu XY, et al. Elevated light levels in schools have a protective effect on myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015; 35: 252–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fleming-Milici F, Harris JL. Food marketing to children in the United States: can industry voluntarily do the right thing for children's health? Physiol Behav. 2020; 227: 113139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Maula A, Kendrick D, Kai J, Griffiths F. Evidence generated from a realist synthesis of trials on educational weight loss interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2020; 38: e14394. [PubMed]
Flitcroft DI, He M, Jonas JB, et al. IMI - Defining and classifying myopia: a proposed set of standards for clinical and epidemiologic studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: M20–M30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhu D, Wang Y, Yang X, et al. Pre- and postcycloplegic refractions in children and adolescents. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0167628. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gifford KL, Richdale K, Kang P, et al. IMI - clinical management guidelines report. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: M184–M203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jong M, Jonas JB, Wolffsohn JS, et al. IMI 2021 yearly digest. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62(5): 7.
Zadnik K, Sinnott LT, Cotter SA, et al. Prediction of juvenile-onset myopia. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015; 133: 683–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McCullough S, Adamson G, Breslin KMM, McClelland JF, Doyle L, Saunders KJ. Axial growth and refractive change in white European children and young adults: predictive factors for myopia. Sci Rep. 2020; 10: 15189. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Logan N, Radhakrishnan H, Cruickshank F, et al. IMI Accommodation and binocular vision in myopia development and progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62(5): 4.
Larouche R, Garriguet D, Gunnell KE, Goldfield GS, Tremblay MS. Outdoor time, physical activity, sedentary time, and health indicators at ages 7 to 14: 2012/2013 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep. 2016; 27: 3–13. [PubMed]
Donovan L, Sankaridurg P, Ho A, et al. Myopia progression in Chinese children is slower in summer than in winter. Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89: 1196–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jonas JB, Ang M, Cho P, et al. IMI prevention of myopia and its progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62(5): 6.
Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of myopia in Orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 7077–85. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Santodomingo-Rubido J, Villa-Collar C, Gilmartin B, Gutierrez-Ortega R. Myopia control with orthokeratology contact lenses in Spain: refractive and biometric changes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 5060–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chen C, Cheung SW, Cho P. Myopia control using toricorthokeratology (TO-SEE study). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 6510–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Charm J, Cho P. High myopia-partial reduction orthokeratology (HM-PRO): study design. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2013; 36: 164–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bullimore MA, Sinnott LT, Jones-Jordan LA. The risk of microbial keratitis with overnight corneal reshaping lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 937–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang XY, Yang B, Liu LQ, Cho P. Analysis of parental decisions to use orthokeratology for myopia control in successful wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021; 41: 3–12, [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chamberlain P, Back A, Lazon de la Jara P, et al. Effectiveness of a dual-focus 1 day soft contact lens for myopia control. British Contact Lens Association Clinical Conference. Liverpool, UK; 2017.
Chamberlain P, Logan N, Jones D, Gonzalez-Meijome J, Saw S-M, Young G. Clinical evaluation of a dual-focus myopia control 1 day soft contact lens: 6-year results. American Academy of Optometry Annual Meeting. Virtual. 2020.
Chamberlain P, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, Logan NS, Ngo C, Jones D, Young G. A 3-year randomized clinical trial of MiSight lenses for myopia control. Optom Vis Sci. 2019; 96: 556–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sankaridurg P, Bakaraju RC, Naduvilath T, et al. Myopia control with novel central and peripheral plus contact lenses and extended depth of focus contact lenses: 2 year results from a randomised clinical trial. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2019; 39: 294–307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cooper J, O'Connor B, Watanabe R, et al. Case Series analysis of myopic progression control with a unique extended depth of focus multifocal contact lens. Eye Cont Lens. 2018; 44: e16–e24. [CrossRef]
Bullimore MA . The safety of soft contact lenses in children. Optom Vis Sci. 2017; 94: 638–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lam CS, Tang WC, Tse DY, Tang YY, To CH. Defocus Incorporated Soft Contact (DISC) lens slows myopia progression in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98: 40–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kanda H, Oshika T, Hiraoka T, et al. Effect of spectacle lenses designed to reduce relative peripheral hyperopia on myopia progression in Japanese children: a 2-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2018; 62: 537–43. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yam JC, Li FF, Zhang X, et al. Two-Year Clinical Trial of the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study: phase 2 report. Ophthalmology. 2020; 127: 910–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yam JC, Jiang Y, Tang SM, et al. Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) Study: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine eye drops in myopia control. Ophthalmology. 2019; 126: 113–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gao C, Wan S, Zhang Y, Han J. The efficacy of atropine combined with orthokeratology in slowing axial elongation of myopia children: a meta-analysis. Eye Cont Lens. 2021; 47: 98–103.
Wang S, Wang J, Wang N. Combined orthokeratology with atropine for children with myopia: a meta-analysis. Ophthalmic Res. 2020 Sep 9 [Epub ahead of print].
Bullimore MA, Brennan NA. Myopia control: why each diopter matters. Optom Vis Sci. 2019; 96: 463–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ. A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93: 949–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Parssinen O, Kauppinen M, Viljanen A. The progression of myopia from its onset at age 8-12 to adulthood and the influence of heredity and external factors on myopic progression. A 23-year follow-up study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014; 92: 730–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bullimore MA, Reuter KS, Jones LA, Mitchell GL, Zoz J, Rah MJ. The Study of Progression of Adult Nearsightedness (SPAN): design and baseline characteristics. Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83: 594–604. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
COMET Group. Myopia stabilization and associated factors among participants in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 7871–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goss DA, Winkler RL. Progression of myopia in youth: age of cessation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1983; 60: 651–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hou W, Norton TT, Hyman L, Gwiazda J, COMET Group. Axial elongation in myopic children and its association with myopia progression in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial. Eye Contact Lens. 2018; 44: 248–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chia A, Chua WH, Cheung YB, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: safety and efficacy of 0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.01% doses (Atropine for the Treatment of Myopia 2). Ophthalmology. 2012; 119: 347–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tong L, Huang XL, Koh AL, Zhang X, Tan DT, Chua WH. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: effect on myopia progression after cessation of atropine. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116: 572–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
VanderVeen DK, Kraker RT, Pineles SL, et al. Use of orthokeratology for the prevention of myopic progression in children: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2019; 126: 623–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gifford KL . Childhood and lifetime risk comparison of myopia control with contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020; 43: 26–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wolffsohn JS, Calossi A, Cho P, et al. Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice - 2019 Update. Cont Lens Anterior Eye.2020; 43: 9–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.