↓ Skip to main content

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Progressive Addition Lenses versus Single Vision Lenses on the Progression of Myopia in Children

Overview of attention for article published in Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, April 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
65 patents
reddit
2 Redditors
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
399 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A Randomized Clinical Trial of Progressive Addition Lenses versus Single Vision Lenses on the Progression of Myopia in Children
Published in
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, April 2003
DOI 10.1167/iovs.02-0816
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET) was to evaluate the effect of progressive addition lenses (PALs) compared with single vision lenses (SVLs) on the progression of juvenile-onset myopia. COMET enrolled 469 children (ages 6-11 years) with myopia between -1.25 and -4.50 D spherical equivalent. The children were recruited at four colleges of optometry in the United States and were ethnically diverse. They were randomly assigned to receive either PALs with a +2.00 addition (n = 235) or SVLs (n = 234), the conventional spectacle treatment for myopia, and were followed for 3 years. The primary outcome measure was progression of myopia, as determined by autorefraction after cycloplegia with 2 drops of 1% tropicamide at each annual visit. The secondary outcome measure was change in axial length of the eyes, as assessed by A-scan ultrasonography. Child-based analyses (i.e., the mean of the two eyes) were used. Results were adjusted for important covariates, by using multiple linear regression. Of the 469 children (mean age at baseline, 9.3 +/- 1.3 years), 462 (98.5%) completed the 3-year visit. Mean (+/-SE) 3-year increases in myopia (spherical equivalent) were -1.28 +/- 0.06 D in the PAL group and -1.48 +/- 0.06 D in the SVL group. The 3-year difference in progression of 0.20 +/- 0.08 D between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.004). The treatment effect was observed primarily in the first year. The number of prescription changes differed significantly by treatment group only in the first year. At 6 months, 17% of the PAL group versus 30% of the SVL group needed a prescription change (P = 0.0007), and, at 1 year, 43% of the PAL group versus 59% of the SVL group required a prescription change (P = 0.002). Interaction analyses identified a significantly larger treatment effect of PALs in children with lower versus higher baseline accommodative response at near (P = 0.03) and with lower versus higher baseline myopia (P = 0.04). Mean (+/- SE) increases in the axial length of eyes of children in the PAL and SVL groups, respectively, were: 0.64 +/- 0.02 mm and 0.75 +/- 0.02 mm, with a statistically significant 3-year mean difference of 0.11 +/- 0.03 mm (P = 0.0002). Mean changes in axial length correlated with those in refractive error (r = 0.86 for PAL and 0.89 for SVL). Use of PALs compared with SVLs slowed the progression of myopia in COMET children by a small, statistically significant amount only during the first year. The size of the treatment effect remained similar and significant for the next 2 years. The results provide some support for the COMET rationale-that is, a role for defocus in progression of myopia. The small magnitude of the effect does not warrant a change in clinical practice.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Spain 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 388 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 12%
Researcher 45 11%
Student > Master 42 11%
Student > Bachelor 32 8%
Other 19 5%
Other 73 18%
Unknown 142 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Physics and Astronomy 16 4%
Neuroscience 12 3%
Other 29 7%
Unknown 154 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2026.
All research outputs
#1,672,030
of 34,443,102 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
#186
of 13,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,922
of 91,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
#2
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,443,102 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.