Differences in Posterior Ocular Morphology Following Red Light Therapy Versus 0.01% Atropine for Myopia Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial Analysis
Zhao Z, Wu Y, Song F, Li M, Wang Y, Chen R, Liu Y, Li J, He M, Chen Y
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 0 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Authors
- At least one author declares a financial tie to industry
Based on full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2026-07-14 · Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci · vol. 67 · issue 8 · p. 35
- Publisher
- Cadmus Press
- Cited
- 0 citations · more than 63% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
- References
- 34 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies · Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Keywords
- Randomized controlled trial, Atropine, Confidence interval, Retinal, Optical coherence tomography
- MeSH
- macula lutea, humans, myopia, atropine, mydriatics, ophthalmic solutions, tomography, optical coherence, adolescent, child, female, male, red light
10 authors
From HK, CN
- Ziwei ZhaoHong Kong Polytechnic University
- Yue WuHong Kong Polytechnic University
- Fan SongHong Kong Polytechnic University
- Mingge LiShenzhen Sixth People's Hospital; ShenZhen People’s Hospital
- Yueye WangHong Kong Polytechnic University
- Ruoyu ChenHong Kong Polytechnic University
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare longitudinal changes in three-dimensional (3D) macular morphology between repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy and 0.01% low-dose atropine (LDA) treatment in myopic children.
Methods
This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 50 myopic children (aged 7-15 years) randomized to receive either RLRL therapy (650 ± 10 nm) or 0.01% atropine eye drops. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Custom software was used to perform distortion correction and quantify macular curvature (MC; mm-1), macular outward scleral height (MOSH; µm), and their respective asymmetry indices. Primary outcomes were 12-month changes in average regional macular curvature. Secondary outcomes included changes in MOSH, asymmetry indices, and retinal layer thicknesses. Linear mixed-effects models analyzed longitudinal changes.
Results
At 12 months, RLRL showed greater macular flattening than 0.01% atropine across all regions (mean differences, × 10-3 mm-1): central (9.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4-13.6, P < 0.01), temporal (9.7, 95% CI = 6.7-12.8, P < 0.001), inferior (8.4, 95% CI = 5.2-11.6, P < 0.001), superior (7.0, 95% CI = 4.0-9.9, P < 0.001), and nasal (3.7, 95% CI = 0.8-6.7, P < 0.05). The inter-group difference was most pronounced centrally and decreased with eccentricity. MOSH decreased superiorly and increased inferiorly in the RLRL group at 12 months, whereas the LDA group showed minimal change. Both nasal-temporal and superior-inferior macular curvature asymmetry indices increased significantly more in the RLRL group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively). No inter-group differences in retinal layer thickness changes were observed.
Conclusions
Over 12 months, RLRL showed broader macular flattening and more region-specific MOSH changes compared with 0.01% atropine in this cohort. However, the underlying mechanisms and the independent contribution of myopic progression to these morphological differences require further study.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.