A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Wearing Adjustable Glasses versus Standard and Ready-made Spectacles among Chinese Schoolchildren: Wearability and Evaluation of Adjustable Refraction III

Congyao Y Wang, Guoshan Zhang, Bobby Tang, Ling Jin, Wenyong Huang, Xiuqin Wang, Tingting Chen, Wenhui Zhu, Baixiang Xiao, Jun Wang, Zhongqiang Zhou, Zhizheng Tang, Yan Liang, Mabel Crescioni, David Wilson, Helen McAneney, Joshua D Silver, Bruce Moore, Nathan Congdon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare wear of standard, adjustable, and ready-made glasses among children.

DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority trial.

PARTICIPANTS: Students aged 11 to 16 years with presenting visual acuity (VA) ≤6/12 in both eyes, correctable to ≥6/7.5, subjective spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) ≤-1.0 diopters (D), astigmatism and anisometropia both <2.00 D, and no other ocular abnormalities.

METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to standard glasses, ready-made glasses, or adjustable glasses based on self-refraction. We recorded glasses wear on twice-weekly covert evaluation by head teachers (primary outcome), self-reported and investigator-observed wear, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (not prespecified), children's satisfaction, and value attributed to glasses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of glasses wear on twice-weekly covert evaluation by head teachers over 2 months.

RESULTS: Among 379 eligible participants, 127 were allocated to standard glasses (mean age, 13.7 years; standard deviation [SD], 1.0 years; 54.3% were male), 125 to ready-made (mean age, 13.6; SD, 0.83; 45.6%), and 127 to adjustable (mean age, 13.4 years; SD, 0.85; 54.3%). Mean wear proportion of adjustable glasses was significantly lower than for standard glasses (45% vs. 58%; P = 0.01), although the adjusted difference (90% confidence interval [CI], -19.0% to -3.0%) did not meet the prespecified inferiority threshold of 20%. Self-reported (90.2% vs. 84.8%, P = 0.64) and investigator-observed (44.1% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.89) wear did not differ between standard and adjustable glasses, nor did satisfaction with (P = 0.97) or value attributed to study glasses (P = 0.55) or increase in quality of life (5.53 [SD, 4.47] vs. 5.68 [SD, 4.34] on a 100-point scale, P > 0.30). Best-corrected visual acuity with adjustable glasses was better (P < 0.001) than with standard glasses. Change in power of study lenses at the end of the study (adjustable: 0.65 D, 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; standard, 0.01 D; 95% CI, -0.006 to 0.03, P < 0.001) was greater for adjustable glasses, although interobserver variation in power measurements may explain this. Lens scratches and frame damage were more common with adjustable glasses, whereas lens breakage was less common than for standard glasses.

CONCLUSIONS: Proportion of wear was lower with adjustable glasses, although VA was better and measures of satisfaction and quality of life were not inferior to standard glasses.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)27-37
Number of pages11
JournalOphthalmology
Volume127
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - Jan 2020

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Adolescent
  • Asians/ethnology
  • Child
  • China/epidemiology
  • Eyeglasses
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Manufactured Materials
  • Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data
  • Patient Compliance
  • Patient Satisfaction
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Refraction, Ocular/physiology
  • Refractive Errors/ethnology
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Vision Disorders/ethnology
  • Vision Screening
  • Visual Acuity/physiology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Wearing Adjustable Glasses versus Standard and Ready-made Spectacles among Chinese Schoolchildren: Wearability and Evaluation of Adjustable Refraction III'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this