ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Pharmaceutical Prescribing Privileges for Optometrists to Combat Childhood Myopia in Singapore: Public Health Policy Review and Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paediatric refraction practices: access to cyclopegia, barriers, and disparities among eye care professionals in Kuala Lumpur.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Thirty-year changes in burden for refraction disorders in China, Japan, Korea and Singapore: a jointly prevention perspective analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Role of Spectacle Lenses in the Control and Management of Myopia Progression: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Value of adding 0.01% atropine with orthokeratology for myopia in children: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Singapore's national myopia prevention efforts have largely focused on school vision screening and public education on outdoor activities in the past two decades. Given the emergence of evidence-based myopia interventions, this policy review and analysis investigates the potential benefits and drawbacks of optometrist prescribing privileges as it has been proposed to reduce the barriers to access effective interventions, such as combined therapy (e.g., orthokeratology treatment and low-dose atropine therapy). In this policy analysis, two policy options were identified to be feasible based on evidence from a systematic literature search and they were analysed along with status quo using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Policy Analysis Framework. This includes independent prescribing and supplementary prescribing, where the former entails autonomous clinical decision making, and the latter entails co-management with ophthalmological supervision. The policy review and analysis found independent prescribing the most favourable and concluded that this should be implemented in view of its benefits for the community. Public health impact is expected to be substantial due to increased patient access, reduced treatment costs, early interventions, improved treatment compliance, and reduced wait times and inconvenience. It is feasible because treatment processes can be streamlined, and it can be implemented based on existing collaborative prescribing frameworks. Economical and budgetary impact is also substantial given the direct savings generated, which can consequently help to reduce the disease burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.