4.3 Article

MiSight Assessment Study Spain: A Comparison of Vision-Related Quality-of-Life Measures Between MiSight Contact Lenses and Single-Vision Spectacles

Journal

EYE & CONTACT LENS-SCIENCE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 44, Issue -, Pages S99-S104

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000413

Keywords

MiSight; Myopia; Quality of life; Contact lenses; Children

Categories

Funding

  1. CooperVision S.L. Spain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Recent research has shown that concentric contact lenses (CLs) can be a way to control the progression of myopia. The purpose of the current study was to compare vision-related quality-of-life measures in children wearing distance single-vision (SV) spectacles versus MiSight CLs, a specific concentric design for myopia control. Methods: Subjects aged 8 to 12 with myopia from -0.75 to -4.00 diopters (D) of sphere and astigmatism less than 1.00 D of cylinder were allocated to the lenses study group (MiSight) or control group (SV). A Pediatric Refractive Error Profile (PREP) questionnaire was administered at 12- and 24-month intervals to evaluate children's perceptions in overall vision, near vision, far distance vision, symptoms, appearance, satisfaction, activities, academic performance, handling, and peer perceptions. The mean score of all items was calculated as the overall score. Results: In total, 74 children completed the study: n=41 in the MiSight group and n=33 in the SV group. In the MiSight group, the ratings at 12 and 24 months for appearance, satisfaction, effect on activities, handling, and peer perceptions were significantly better than those given by children in the SV group (P<0.001), as was the overall score. However, near vision was significantly better in the SV group at both 12 and 24 months (P<0.001). Conclusions: MiSight CL wear for controlling myopia improves vision-related quality of life in children when compared with spectacle wear.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available