Suggestions(5)
Exact(6)
The differences in angles I and II between the low to moderate myopia group and the emmetropia group were not significant (p > 0.05).
In contrast, 0.7% were observed with PVD among moderate myopia group, and 0.8% among mild myopia or hyperopia group (SE > -1D).
Angle I was significantly smaller in the high myopia group than in the low to moderate myopia group (p = 0.028) and the emmetropia group (p = 0.044), while angle II was significantly larger in the high myopia group compared with the low to moderate myopia group and the emmetropia group (p < 0.001, p = 0.007).
The male to female ratios were 3 1 in the high myopia group, 2 1 in the low to moderate myopia group, and 1 1 in the emmetropia group.
A total of 17 subjects were in the low myopia group (< 3.0 D), 31 were in the moderate myopia group (–3.00 D to –6.00 D), 43 were in the high myopia group (–6.00 D to -10.00 D), and 16 were in the super high myopia group (> −10.00 D).
The SER ranged from −1.25 to −2.75 D in the low myopia group, from −3.25 to −5.50 D in the moderate myopia group and from −6.00 to −7.88 D in the high myopia group (Table 2).> -wrap-foot> *Unpaired t-test.
Similar(54)
Treated eyes were divided into two groups, according to the preoperative spherical equivalent (SE): mild to moderate myopia (A group, <−6.0 D) and high myopia (B group, ≥ − 6.0 D).
In this group, the SER ranged from −1.00 to −2.75 D in the low myopia control group, from −3.13 to −4.75 D in moderate myopia control group and from −6.00 to −10.13 D in the high myopia control group (Table 2).
This is the first study to compare the 1-year SMILE outcomes of mild- to moderate-myopia patients (Group A) with those of high-myopia patients (Group B).
There was a significant difference in axial elongation when comparing ortho-k and control groups with low and moderate myopia during the first year and the second year.
The MD values were significantly reduced in the high myopia group compared to the low to moderate myopia and emmetropia groups.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com