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

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.