Ai Feedback
Exact(9)
To evaluate the type and incidence of adverse events seen with daily disposable hydrogel contact lens wear compared with a control (spectacle) group over 12 months.
There were no adverse events reported in the spectacle group.
The 8Δ base-in spectacle group included 51 subjects and the HTS groups also included 51 subjects.
The mean amplitude of accommodation was 12.66 ± 2.3D in the control group, 11.86 ± 2.6D in the HTS group and 11.51 ± 2.5 in the prism spectacle group.
In the current study axial length elongation was found to be 46% slower in the high myopic ortho-k group compared with the spectacle group.
Cho et al.[ 28] first reported that an increase in axial length of 0.29 mm in an ortho-k-treated group and of 0.54 mm in a spectacle group over a 2-year period.
Similar(50)
The change in axial length growth between the ortho-k and spectacle groups found in our study is reasonably consistent with previously reported studies, although variations in ethnicity, age and basic refractive error between studies likely affect the rates of myopic progression [ 28– 34].
The mean reading error score was 5.34 ± 3.5 in the control group, 4.53 ± 3.06 in the HTS group and 4.92 ± 4.06 in the prism spectacles group.
A number of visual behaviours such as making eye contact, accuracy of reaching behaviour and recognising simple pictures were described as being improved in the 'given spectacles immediately' group (n=73), but not in the delayed spectacles group (n=56) or in children with no need for glasses, some of whom had been given 'placebo' spectacles as a form of control.
In 2011, Kakita et al. obtained similar changes of 0.39 ± 0.27 mm in the OK lens group versus 0.61 ± 0.24 mm in the control spectacles group over 2 years [ 32].
During the 2 year period, the spectacle control group exhibited more change in axial length than did the ortho-k group during both the first year (0.39 ± 0.21 mm vs 0.16 ± 0.17 mm,; 59% slower in the ortho-k group) and the second year (0.31 ± 0.24 mm vs 0.18 ± 0.15 mm,; 42% slower in the ortho-k group).
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