ArticleClinical optometry2026
Visual Training for Myopia Control: An Independent and Additive Inhibitor of Axial Growth.
Article in Clinical optometry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of visual training (VT) in retarding axial elongation in myopic children and to determine its additive clinical value when combined with standard myopia control modalities, including orthokeratology (OK), defocus spectacles (DS), and low-concentration atropine (LCA). Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter, self-controlled cohort study. A total of 208 myopic children (mean age 9.73 ± 2.08 years) who underwent a structured visual training program were included. Subjects were stratified into five subgroups based on concurrent treatments: VT monotherapy, VT+DS, VT+OK, VT+DS+LCA, and VT+OK+LCA. Annualized axial elongation rates were calculated for the pre-training (baseline) and post-training intervals. The primary outcome was the reduction in axial elongation rate. Results: The mean axial elongation rate significantly attenuated from a baseline of 0.38 ± 0.34 mm/year to 0.23 ± 0.30 mm/year following the intervention (P < 0.001), representing a mean reduction of 0.15 ± 0.31 mm/year. There were no statistically significant differences in the magnitude of rate reduction among the five subgroups (P = 0.826), indicating that VT confers a consistent additive benefit independent of concurrent optical or pharmacological therapies. Pearson correlation analysis revealed a good positive association between baseline progression rate and treatment efficacy (r = 0.57, P < 0.001), suggesting that children with faster initial progression derived the greatest therapeutic benefit. Conclusion: Visual training effectively slows axial elongation, shifting pathological growth trajectories toward physiological norms. It functions as a universal adjunctive therapy, providing robust and independent protective effects regardless of whether the patient is using OK lenses, defocus spectacles, or atropine. These findings support the use of visual training as a priority "rescue therapy" for rapid progressors.
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.