Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Review Article

A Review of Current Concepts of the Etiology and Treatment of Myopia

Cooper, Jeffrey M.S., O.D., F.A.A.O.; Tkatchenko, Andrei V. M.D., Ph.D.

Author Information
Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice: July 2018 - Volume 44 - Issue 4 - p 231-247
doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000499
  • Open


Myopia is a common and yet perplexing ocular disorder. Once viewed as a benign refractive condition, today myopia, even at low levels, is associated with increased risk for numerous ocular diseases.1 Researchers have reported on the myopia epidemic, which is occurring worldwide.2 Although the exact etiology of myopia remains elusive, it appears to have both genetic and environmental components,3 making prevention and treatment both challenging and individualized. Stopping the progression of myopia has the potential to positively affect quality of life and ocular health. Popular control options today include progressive addition lenses (PAL), topical atropine, orthokeratology (OK) lenses, and multifocal contact lenses. The intent of this review is to provide the most current information about myopia etiology and treatment strategies with the goal that ocular health may be preserved.


Myopia is the most common ocular disorder worldwide.4 The prevalence of myopia in the United States has increased from 25% to 44% between 1972 and 2004.5–7 In urban communities in Asia, the prevalence is greater than 80%.8,9 The prevalence is much lower in underdeveloped areas in the world such as Sherpa in Nepal.10

The economic burden of eye diseases is approximately $139 billion in the United States, with nearly $16 billion spent on myopia correction alone.5,6,11 Myopia represents a major risk factor for a number of other ocular pathologies such as cataract, glaucoma, retinal detachment, and myopic maculopathy, which is comparable to the risks associated with hypertension for stroke and myocardial infarction.1,12 Taking into account pathological complications of myopia and other serious pathologies associated with the disease, myopia not only negatively affects self-perception, job/activity choices, and ocular health,13–15 but also represents one of the leading causes of blindness in the world.16 The yearly incidence of retinal detachments is 0.015% in patients with less than 4.74 diopters (D) myopia and it increases to 0.07% in myopia greater than 5 D and 3.2% myopia greater than 6 D.17,18 Myopic patients also have great risk of developing macular choroidal neovascularization, that is, 2X for patients with 1 D to 2 D of myopia; 4X with 3 D to 4 D of myopia; and 9X for 5 to 6 D of myopia.19 It is estimated that 4.8 billion people (one half of the world's population) will be affected by myopia by 2050.20 A recent study reported that 10% of Asian high school students have high myopia, which increases the risk for future retinal disease.21

Historically, some eye care professionals have believed that myopia is a hereditary anomaly, whereas others have believed that myopia is environmentally induced. However, human and animal studies conducted over the last four decades suggest that development of myopia is controlled by both environmental and genetic factors.22–25

Human population studies have revealed that environmental factors, such as near work and reading, play an important role in the development of myopia.26–32 However, this is not without some controversy.33 Zylbermann et al.34 analyzed the incidence of myopia in two groups: Orthodox Jewish students (male and female, where males, unlike females, spent the majority of the day reading) and secular Jewish students (male and female, where both men and women spent less time reading than the male students in the orthodox Jewish schools). They found that the Orthodox Jewish male students had a much higher incidence and degree of myopia as compared to the other three groups of students. This finding suggests that reading was the factor that caused myopia.

In addition, there are a number of epidemiological studies that show that myopia is more common in urban areas, among professionals, educated patients, computer users, university students, and associated with increased intelligence.35–43 There is evidence that the intensity of reading may be more important than the actual time spent reading.44 Myopia is also increased in individuals who perform tasks requiring increased use of eyes such as microscopists.45 These and other findings of the association between near work and myopia were complemented by the observations that near work and reading are associated with the lag of accommodation, that is, insufficiently strong accommodative response to near objects, which places the plane of best focus behind the retina (hyperopic defocus) when the subject performs near work tasks.46,47 This observation led to the theory that the optical blur such as produced by the lag of accommodation may be the signal that drives excessive eye growth and causes myopia.27,46,48–51 This theory is supported by the numerous animal studies, which have found that degradation of visual input using either diffusers or negative lenses causes excessive eye growth and myopia in species as diverse as fish, chickens, tree shrews, monkeys, guinea pigs, and mice.52–67

Wiesel and Raviola were the first to induce experimental myopia in an animal model. They placed a translucent screen over a monkey's eye causing it to become severely myopic; however, when total occlusion was used instead, there was no change in the length of the eye.61,68 Thus, stimulation of the retina with a blurred image results in alteration of the growth signals within the eye. Numerous studies performed in animals using both positive and negative lenses have demonstrated that the eye will change its axial length (AL) to accommodate for the lens placed in front of the eye.69–72 This change is reversible because some animals are able to recover when the visual stimuli is removed.73 This change in AL occurred even if the optic nerve was severed.74 It occurred in half the eye, if only half the eye was exposed to blur using a diffuser or plus or minus lenses.75 The fact that the eye responds to local blur with local changes even when the optic nerve is severed demonstrates that the signaling cascade regulating refractive eye development is within the eye itself and does not require a feedback from the brain (Fig. 1). Rada et al.76 reported that the retina provides remodeling signals to the sclera by which the eye alters its shape to place an image on the retina, that is, emmetropization.

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.:
Regional blur causes axial elongation. Regional retinal blur created in half the retina causes regional elongation of the eye. This occurs even when the optic nerve is cut, but will not occur if atropine is injected into the eye. The eye recognizes the direction of the blur, that is, plus or minus lenses and the region of retinal blur. Reprinted with permission from Cooper J, Schulman E, Jamal N. Current status on the development and treatment of myopia. Optometry 2012;83:179–99.

Smith et al. experimentally asked the most important question. Does the eye respond to foveal blur, peripheral blur, or equally to both?77,78 Smith created a series of lenses in which the center was minus and the periphery was plus and lenses in which the center was plus and the periphery was minus. In both cases, the length of the eye changed in response to the peripheral lens power. For instance if the central lens was plus and the peripheral part of the lens was minus, the eye elongated. Lastly, Smith et al.79 ablated the macula of a number of monkeys. In this instance, the eyes still changed their AL in response to the lens power. These studies suggest that defocus information is summed up across the entire surface of the retina and the integrated signal regulates the growth of the eye (Fig. 2).74,78,80 Many clinicians and researchers believe that these animal studies have a direct relationship to the development of axial elongation or myopia and they have suggested that treatment should be based on these models.2,78,81

FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.:
Image shells on the retina. Once the eye elongates in myopia, optical images from spherical lenses no longer fall on the retinal plane. The peripheral images are out of focus falling on a plane behind the retina. It is thought that the relative hyperopic error created is the stimulus for axial elongation. Current optical treatments move the peripheral focus in front of the retina.

Myopia seems to progress the most between ages 8 and 15 (Caucasians X=0.6 D/year. and Asians X=0.7 D/year.) and then begins to slow down.82–84 Mutti et al.85 reported that in a large cohort of subjects, which developed myopia, a year or two before the onset of myopia, hyperopic defocus developed in the periphery of the eye along the horizontal meridian. This relative hyperopia is believed to be growth signal. If this hyperopic, defocus is altered optically to create myopic defocus by using plus power in the periphery; according to this theory, a stop signal is created. This is the basis for most optical treatments.77

Myopia increases the most during the winter and the least during the summer months.86,87 It is unknown if this is because of increased school work, decreased sunlight, or decreased time outside. In previous generations, myopic progression was assumed to end at age 18.88 However, that has changed since more students have entered graduate school followed by jobs requiring 8 hr of sustained computer work.43 This conjecture was recently studied in a cohort of post-university graduates with a mean age of 35.89 Myopia was found to progress in approximately 10% of the cohort who spent a lot of time in front of computers. Those subjects who did not spend time in front of computers did not progress as much. In addition, Bullimore et al.90 reported that 21% of contact wearers between the ages of 20 and 40 years of age progressed at least 1 D over 5-year period of follow-up.

All these human and animal studies strongly suggest that environmental factors play a an important role in the development and progression of myopia; however, human population studies suggest the contribution of genetic factors accounts for at least 70% of variance in refraction.91–95 It is clear that the incidence of myopia increases when both parents have myopia.38,96 Numerous studies have shown that the refractive error of the parents is the most important predictor of the development of myopia.97,98 Strong support also comes from studies comparing monozygotic99 and dizygotic twins.91,100,101 The refractive error is thought to be influenced by multiple interacting genes.91–93 Multiple chromosomal loci, which are linked to human myopia, have been identified.23,102–128 However, myopia appears to be a rather heterogeneous disease because the genetic loci and genetic variants associated with myopia in different families and ethnic groups are often distinct.23,25,102–127 Considering that complex quantitative traits such as myopia are often controlled by dozens or even hundreds of chromosomal loci,129 and that the identified chromosomal loci could account for less than 25% of myopia cases,107 only a small fraction of chromosomal regions that control refractive eye development has been identified.

Thus, both environmental and genetics factors have been shown to contribute to myopia development22–25; however, it was not clear whether these factors act independently or if there was some form of interaction. Recent work by Tkatchenko et al.3 has helped consolidate the dichotomy of views related to the etiology of myopia, that is, genes versus environment. These authors studied a three-way interaction between age, time spent reading, and genetic variation at APLP2 gene locus. It was found that children who spent a “high” amount of time reading and who had the myopic version of APLP2 gene were 5 times more likely to develop myopia compared to those children who spent “low” amount of time reading. On the contrary, children who carried a normal version of APLP2 did not develop myopia even if they were exposed to high levels of reading. To confirm the human findings, they studied refractive eye development in APLP2 knockout mice and found similar interaction between APLP2 and visual experience in mice. This study demonstrated for the first time gene–environment interaction in myopia development and suggested that genetic background of an individual determines the impact of environmental factors on refractive eye development.


The incidence of retinal detachment and macular degeneration increases logarithmically above 2 diopters of myopia (Fig. 3).1 To put this in perspective, keeping myopia at −1.00 versus −3.00 D reduces the risk of macular degeneration by 4 times and retinal detachment by 3 times. Brennan130 reported that reducing progression by 33% would result in a 73% reduction in myopia progression above 5 D; if the reduction rate improved to 50%, then there would be 90% reduction of myopia above 5 D. Thus, myopia control becomes an increasingly important issue because recent environmental changes have not only resulted in a sharp increase in the incidence of myopia worldwide, but caused an increase in the age of progression and the ultimate increase in the magnitude of the refractive error. In our opinion, patients should be presented with the current risks and benefits of the various treatment options available for myopia control.

FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.:
Risk of ocular disease with increased myopia. It is readily apparent that the risk of retinal detachment and macular degeneration increases logarithmically with the increase of acquired myopia.139 The risk begins with as little as 1.00 D of myopia. Reprinted with permission from Flitcroft DI. The complex interactions of retinal, optical and environmental factors in myopia aetiology. Prog Retin Eye Res 2012;31:622–60.

Animal and human studies have important practical consequences for the treatment of myopia. They specifically suggest that reducing lag of accommodation, reducing both central and peripheral defocus, and blocking myopiagenic signaling in the eye should slow the progression of myopia. Considering that the information about signaling pathways underlying myopia development is limited, the currently considered treatment modalities for control of myopic progression include optical correction such as bifocal spectacle lenses, progressive addition spectacle lenses, under-correction, OK, multifocal contact lenses, and increased exposure to outdoor activities, with the notable exception of atropine which has been shown to block myopiagenic signaling albeit with some uncomfortable side effects.81


Bifocal spectacle lenses were the first to be used extensively to control myopia progression. The lenses were prescribed based on the assumption that myopia was a response to prolonged accommodation producing optical blur.51,81,131,132 There have been a number of retrospective studies, which showed that bifocals and PALs slow the progression of myopia.133–135 On average, these studies suggested that myopia was slowed by 40%. However, these studies had some issues with experimental design, for example, they were retrospective, unmasked, etc. The COMET (The Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial) study was designed to determine if a +2.00 D PAL slowed the progression of myopia as compared to a single-vision (SV) full correcting spectacle lens.136 This NIH/NEI prospective, multicenter clinical trial demonstrated that in the first year, PALs slowed the progression of myopia by 20%. However, the effect was significantly reduced in years 2 to 4. The net reduction was 0.2 D, which was clinically insignificant but reached statistical significance. The progressive lenses were the most effective when both parents were myopic, there was a large lag of accommodation and/or the children had esophoria at near.51,137

Recently, Cheng et al.138 studied the use of high fitting executive bifocal spectacle lenses with base-in prism as compared to SV lenses in a group of Canadian Asians. The experimental lens slowed the progression of myopia by 40%. However, this study was not masked and was not double-blinded. In 2011, Shi-Ming Li et al. performed a meta-analysis of 9 clinical trials in which powers of PALs ranged from +1.5 to +2.0 D and found that PALs slowed myopic progression by 0.25 D/year as compared to SV lenses. The effect was greater in Asian children as compared to Caucasians and also greater in children who had a higher level of myopia at baseline and who progressed at a more rapid rate (Fig. 4).139

FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.:
Meta-analysis of progressives and bifocal spectacle lenses. Meta-analysis139 of 9 clinical trials in which progressive additional and bifocal spectacle lenses (MFL) are compared with single-vision lenses (SVL) using spherical equivalent (A) and axial length (B). Mean difference between SVL and MFL was 0.25 D per year and in those that reported axial length changes, the difference was 0.012 mm.137,244–251 The benefit of MFL was greater in Asian versus white children (0.32 D vs. 0.10 D) and/or those that initially had a higher baseline refraction. (Less than 3 D at baseline = 0.16 D vs. greater than 3 D at baseline 0.39 D). It should be noted that these findings were not replicated in an analysis of 16 treatment protocols for myopia.243 Reprinted with permission from Li SM, Ji YZ, Wu SS, et al. Multifocal versus school-age children: a meta-analysis. Surv Ophthalmol 2011;56:451–60.

In a novel experiment, spectacle lenses, which were designed to reduce peripheral hyperopic defocus, were evaluated to determine their effect on the progression of myopia in Chinese children aged 6 to 16 years.140 The authors reported that none of the spectacle lenses had any significant effect in slowing the progression of myopia. Failure to achieve a significant result is believed to be related to the constant changing of eye position when viewing through the lenses.

Historically, many eye care professionals have under-corrected myopia in the belief that the myopic progression will slow down as a result of reduced accommodation. However, with today's knowledge that blur affects the ability of the eye to become emmetropic, this is intuitively incorrect. Two recent studies have demonstrated that under-correction actually results in mild acceleration of myopia progression.141,142 Thus, under-correction should not be used to slow myopic progression.

Contact Lenses

For years, it was believed that gas permeable contact lenses slowed the progression of myopia. However, it should be remembered that gas permeable contacts typically are prescribed when myopia begins to slow down (12 and older) and that these contact lenses flatten the cornea. In a number of well-controlled clinical trials, it has been shown that neither conventional soft nor gas permeable contact lenses alter the progression of myopia.143,144

In 2003, Reim et al.145 performed a retrospective study of 253 children (ages 6–18) on the ability of OK to slow the progression of myopia. He reported that the rate of progression was slowed from 0.5 to 0.13 D/year. Subsequently, there have been a number of prospective clinical trials, which have demonstrated that OK tends to slow the progression of myopia by 40% using AL measurements and wash-out cycloplegic measurements.146–154 Two separate meta-analyses of these studies, which included 435 patients across 7 studies, demonstrated support for OK's ability to slow myopic progression.155,156 All 7 studies reported AL changes after 2 years, whereas 2 studies reported vitreous chamber depth changes. The pooled estimates indicated change in AL in the OK group. Myopic progression was reduced by approximately 45% (Fig. 5).

FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.:
Meta-analysis of orthokeratology. Meta-analysis of 7 OK studies155,156 was performed, which included 435 subjects who were aged between 6 and 16 years.148,150,151,241,252–254 Meta analysis found a mean difference between controls and OK patients of 0.26 mm over 2 years. This is a 40% reduction in the progression of myopia. Reprinted with permission from Si JK, Tang K, Bi HS, Guo DD, Guo JG, Wang XR. Orthokeratology for myopia control: A meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci 2015.

Swarbrick et al.152 studied 26 myopic children (11–17 years of age) of East Asian ethnicity using a crossover design study. All of the children were fitted with an overnight OK lens in one eye and a conventional rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lens for daytime wear in the contralateral eye. After 6 months, the lens–eye combinations were reversed and lens wear was continued for another 6 months. After 6 months of lens wear, the average AL of the RGP eye had increased by an average of 0.04 mm, whereas the OK eye showed no change. After the second 6-month phase of lens wear, the OK eye showed no change from baseline in AL, whereas the conventional RGP eye demonstrated a significant increase in mean AL, that is, 0.09 mm. In summary, the conventional RGP lens-wearing eye showed progressive AL growth (myopic progression) throughout the study while the OK eye did not.

There have been two other OK studies that have some reasonable long-term data (5 years and 7 years) demonstrating the myopia control effect of OK.153,154 Orthokeratology provides patients with a “wow” factor and the elimination of daily wearing of contact lenses or glasses. This is particularly beneficial for more athletic children. Visual acuity is quite good with the majority achieving 20/20 and over 90% achieving 20/30.157

Many eye care professionals believe that the change in the curvature of the cornea is achieved by mechanical flattening of the cornea. However, there is a strong evidence that the change in refraction is achieved by horizontal movement of epithelial cells that occurs from the reverse pressure made from the seal created in the mid-periphery bearing area of the lens.158,159 Proper fitting requires a 20-μm postlens/precorneal tear film. The most significant complaints found with OK are halos secondary to the spherical aberration, which also reduces visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, or discomfort from the lenses.160

The true risk of infection with OK is unknown.161 Any risk from infection in a voluntary treatment program that involves children must be weighed against the potential benefit of future reduction of ocular complications such as retinal detachment and macular degeneration. The best estimate of the risk of microbial keratitis (MK) from OK is slightly less than from extended wear of contact lenses. The overall rate is 7.7 per 10,000 years of wear.162 This compares to 1.4 per 10,000 patient years of wear in nonwearers, 11.9 per 10,000 patient years of wear in silicone hydrogel daily wearers, and 20 per 10,000 patient years of wear in soft contact lens extended wear.163 This is not a surprise because the lenses are on for a maximum of 8 to 10 hr per day compared to 24 hr for extended wear lenses, the lenses are more oxygen permeable than soft lenses, and the surface of the lens is smoother or slipperier than soft lenses, so that a biofilm does not stick to the lens as easily. The incidence of MK is higher in children than adults.164 The low incidence should not be dismissed; however, the majority of infections can be handled with aggressive antimicrobial therapy. The rare cases that result from Acanthamoeba or Fusarium infection often result in an avoidable damage to the cornea.165 Thus, proper hygiene and cleaning is imperative. These lenses, like all other contact lenses, should never be soaked in tap water. Because of the nature of the wearing of the lenses at night, there is greater opportunity for the parents to supervise the wearing of these lenses versus regular soft lenses.

The largest effect from OK is achieved in children who have moderate myopia (between 1.25 and 4.0 diopters) and have larger pupils. It is more difficult to get good results with lower (presumed to be because of the lower mid-periphery plus induced) or higher myopia (inability to achieve targeted prescription).154,166–168 Infrequent corneal infiltrates can be minimized by the use of hydrogen-peroxide solutions and mild flattening of the landing zone of the lenses. Published dropout rates are around 20%; however, the children who stay in the program are happier than children fit with traditional contact lenses.148

Cho and Cheung169 evaluated the rebound effect when OK lenses were discontinued by comparing the AL in two groups. Group 1 wore OK lenses for 24 months, discontinued lens wear for 7 months, wore SV spectacles (phase I), and then resumed OK lens wear for another 7 months. Group 2 was a control group, which wore spectacles. Stopping OK lens wear resulted in a more rapid increase in AL as compared to those wearing spectacles during the initial 2-year myopia control study (rebound effect). Axial elongation slowed again when OK was resumed. This study suggests that there is a rebound effect with OK lenses.

Recently, there has been renewed increased interest in the use of soft lenses to create similar optics as OK.170–176 To design an optically similar lens, one would need to manufacture a multifocal lens with a distance center. Smaller optic zones are preferable because the larger the retinal area stimulated with strong plus lenses, the greater the effect in slowing the progression of myopia. Walline et al.175 fit 40 children with soft multifocal contact lenses (Proclear Multifocal “D”; CooperVision, Fairport, NY) with a +2.00 D add power and compared them to a historical age-matched control group of SV distance lens wearers. The adjusted mean progression of myopia at 2 years was −1.03±0.06 D for the SV contact lens wearers and −0.51±0.06 D for the soft multifocal contact lens wearers (P<0.0001). The adjusted mean axial elongation was 0.41±0.03 and 0.29±0.03 mm for the SV and soft multifocal contact lens wearers, respectively (P<0.0016). Soft multifocal contact lens wear resulted in a 50% reduction in the progression of myopia and a 29% reduction in axial elongation during the 2-year treatment period. One may question Walline's findings, however, because they were compared to a historical control. In addition, it is well known from the COMET studies that the greatest myopia-controlling effect of any intervention happens in the first year. Lastly, there are no data on discontinuing the lenses with possible rebound effects.

In a recent study, children, who were found to have myopic progression after 1 year of traditional contact lens or spectacle use, were placed in 1 of 3 groups: (1) radial refractive gradient (SRRG) contact lenses, (2) OK, and (3) a SV glasses.176 The SRRG is an experimental soft contact lens with a distance center and high plus in the mid-periphery. After 2 years, the mean myopia progression values for the SRRG, OK, and SV groups were −0.56, −0.32, and −0.98 D, respectively. This represents a reduction in myopic progression of 43% and 67% for the SRRG and OK groups as compared to the SV group. In addition, the AL increase was less by 27% and 38% in the SRRG and OK groups as compared to the SV group. Although these results are encouraging, the SRRG lens is not currently commercially available. In a different study, Aller et al.177 used an Acuvue Bifocal (Johnson & Johnson, Jacksonville, FL) center distance bifocal soft contact lens in selected myopic esophoric patients and achieved almost a 70% reduction of myopia after 1 year, but the applicability of this finding outside of esophoric patients is not known. A meta-analysis (Fig. 6), which included 587 subjects, from 8 studies found that concentric ring and distance centered multifocal designs slowed myopia progression by 30% to 38% and 31% to 51% for axial elongation over 24 months.178 Turnbull et al.179 performed a retrospective case series analysis of 110 myopic children and reported that multifocal soft lens and OK slowed myopic progression equally, that is, OK before treatment progression X=−1.17 to after treatment −0.09 D/year; dual focus soft contact lens before progression X=−1.15 to after treatment −0.10 D/year. Using a similar retrospective case series analysis as was used by Turnbull et al.,179 Cooper et al.180 performed a retrospective case series of 32 myopic children and reported that a center distance extended depth of focus soft multifocal contact lens design slowed myopic progression with before progression X=−0.85 D to after treatment −0.04 D/year right eye and before progression X=−0.90 D to after treatment −0.04 D/year left eye.

FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.:
FIG. 6. Meta-analysis of multifocal contact lenses. Meta-analysis,178 which included eight studies published between 1999 and 2016, that compared single-vision soft lenses with both concentric ring bifocal soft contact lenses (CCML)170,177,255–257 and peripheral add soft contact lenses (MCL).171,175,176 There was less myopia progression with both lenses (the CCML had a weighted mean difference [WMD] of 0.31 D and reduced axial elongation WMD of –0.12 mm, whereas MCL had a WMD of 0.22 D and less axial elongation of 0.10 at the end of 1 year). This represented a 31% reduction of progression with the CCML and 51% reduction with MCL. Axial length reduction was also noted: 38% with the CCML and 51% with MCL after 2 years. Reprinted with permission from Li SM, Kang MT, Wu SS, et al. Studies using concentric ring bifocal and peripheral add multifocal contact lenses to slow myopia progression in school-aged children: a meta-analysis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016.

Figure 6 presents a meta-analysis of the use of soft multifocal contact lenses to slow the progression of myopia.178

Pharmaceutical Agents

In addition to manipulating visual input with lenses to control myopia, atropine has been shown to slow the progression of the disease. Atropine was first used by Wells in 1900 to stop the progression of myopia by “paralyzing” accommodation. Analysis of a number of retrospective studies using atropine has shown that 1% atropine tends to slow the progression of myopia by almost 80% (Table 1).181–193 The effect is by a nonaccommodative mechanism,70,80,194 because a number of studies have shown that atropine inhibits AL: in animals that have no accommodative mechanism195; when the optic nerve has been cut thus eliminating feedback necessary for accommodation74; or when regionally induced AL changes occur from blur.71 Though the exact mechanism by which atropine inhibits myopia progression is unknown, multiple studies have indicated that atropine has an effect altering the sclera.196–198 It has, also, been suggested that ultraviolet (UV) light (secondary to pupil dilation) may increase collagen cross-linking within the sclera, thereby slowing scleral growth.199

Retrospective Studies of Atropine 1% to Slow Myopic Progression

The most common complaints when using atropine, however, are pupil dilation and temporary paralysis of accommodation. These issues can be mitigated by photochromic, PAL glasses. There have been, also, some concerns of increased UV exposure and long-term retinal damage.200 However, UV exposure (other than oblique rays) can be reduced by the use of UV coatings on the lenses, and the lost accommodation can be mitigated by the use of PALs. Besides enjoying a good safety profile with long-term clinical use,201 Electroretinogram results (which are a sensitive indicator for early retinal damage) are normal in patients using atropine for a long term.81,201–203 In the 2-year ATOM study (N=400), there were no serious adverse effects. Reasons for withdrawal included: allergic or hypersensitivity reactions, discomfort (4.5%), glare (1.5%), blurred near vision (1%), logistical difficulties (3.5%) and others (0.5%). Similar minimal adverse rates have been reported by other atropine studies. The use of 1% atropine seems to have its strongest effect in year one. Many of these earlier studies demonstrated long-term effectiveness of atropine186,189,192 (Table 1). Chiang et al.204 studied the effect of 1% atropine used once a week for 1 month to 10 years. They reported a mean progression rate of 0.08 D/year in the compliant group and 0.23 D/year in the partially compliant group.

Chua et al.205 (ATOM1) studied the effect of 1% atropine in a group of 400 children (13.5% dropout rate) where one group received atropine, whereas the other group received a placebo. Only one eye of each child was chosen for treatment. The mean progression in the control eye after 2 years was 0.6 D/year and in the atropine-treated eye was 0.14 D/year. This represents a 77% reduction in the progression of myopia. Furthermore, the AL measurements in the eyes, which received atropine, remained essentially unchanged (0.02 mm over 2 years). There were no serious adverse events with the atropine being well tolerated. Figure 7 depicts the percentage of progression in patients on 1% atropine versus control.

FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.:
Atropine 1% versus control in slowing myopic progression. Data from the ATOM 1 study are pictorially presented and clearly show the effectivity of atropine over control.205 Seventy percent of the atropine subjects had less than 0.5 D of progression compared with less than 20% of the controls. It is apparent that atropine 1% results in strong control of myopia progression. Reprinted with permission from Cooper J, Schulman E, Jamal N. Current status on the development and treatment of myopia. Optometry 2012;83:179–99.

There have been a number of studies that evaluated the relationship of dosage of atropine to the reduction of progression. Shih et al.206 evaluated the effect of different doses of atropine on 200 children (6–13 years of age) who were randomly prescribed one drop of 0.5%, 0.25%, or 0.1% atropine, or 0.5% tropicamide (control group) in both eyes nightly. The mean progression of myopia was 0.04±0.63 D/year in the 0.5% atropine group, 0.45±0.55 D/year in the 0.25% atropine group, and 0.47±0.91 D/year in the 0.1% atropine group, as compared to 1.06±0.61 D/year in the control group. At the end of the 2-year treatment period, 61% of children in the 0.5% atropine group, 49% in the 0.25% atropine group, and 42% in the 0.1% atropine group had no myopic progression (Fig. 8). In another study, the concentration of atropine was varied from winter (0.5%) to summer (0.1%) based on the assumption that myopia progresses less during the summer. This allowed children to have less pupillary dilation during the summer months when the sunlight and photophobia is the greatest.207 This regimen slowed myopic progression by 77%. Fang et al.208 evaluated the efficacy of 0.025% atropine to prevent the development of myopia in a group of children presenting with the signs of myopic progression. There was a 50% reduction in the number of children who converted from emmetropia to myopia. The highest concentration of atropine, which does not cause any symptoms related to pupil dilation or decreased accommodation when atropine is used is 0.02%.209

FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.:
Myopic progression with various doses of atropine. Shih et al. demonstrated that the ability of atropine to control progression is directly related to concentration.206 The higher the dosage, the more effective atropine is in slowing the progression of myopia. It is clear that even at a relatively low dosage of atropine 0.01%, there is a clinically effective retardation of the progression of myopia. Reprinted with permission from Shih YF, Chen CH, Chou AC, Ho TC, Lin LL, Hung PT. Effects of different concentrations of atropine on controlling myopia in myopic children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 1999;15:85–90.

The ATOM 2 study200 evaluated various concentrations of atropine, including the one below that threshold, that is, 0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.01%. After 2 years, researchers found that all 3 concentrations slowed the progression of myopia. The mean progression with each concentration (spherical equivalent) was 0.15 D/year (0.5% atropine), 0.19 D/year (0.1% atropine), and 0.25 D/year (0.01% atropine)210 (Fig. 9). On first glance, the ATOM 2 study suggests that myopic progression was slowed with all concentrations, with similar effects between moderate and low concentrations. However, this conclusion is not justified if one uses AL to measure myopic progression rather than refractive error. Figure 10 depicts the axial change measurements from ATOM 1 and 2 studies combined at the end of 2 years. The ATOM 1 study showed a minimal 0.02 mm change in AL over 2 years of time with the use atropine 1%, whereas the ATOM 2 showed no statistical difference between the placebo and atropine 0.01% group. This is important for two reasons. First, if the primary purpose of slowing myopia progression is to reduce axial elongation which in turn decreases future retinal complications, then the lower concentrations are not nearly as effective as atropine 1%. Second, minimal difference between placebo and atropine 0.01% AL changes versus significant refractive changes between placebo and atropine 0.01% should make the clinician question of the “true effect” of atropine 0.01%.

FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.:
Progression of myopia during 3 phases of ATOM studies. This graph depicts the cycloplegic refractions (spherical equivalent) in all 3 phases of the ATOM 1 and 2 studies.212 The first phase was for 2 years during which subjects were randomized to receive various concentrations of atropine (1%, 0.5%). After 2 years, treatment was stopped in all groups for 1 year of time. Those patients still showing more than 0.50 diopters of myopia progression were placed on atropine 0.01% and followed for another 2 years. Reprinted with permission from Chia A, Lu QS, Tan D. Five-year clinical trial on atropine for the treatment of myopia 2: Myopia control with atropine 0.01% eyedrops. Ophthalmology 2016;123:391–99.
FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.:
Changes in AL and SPH EQ after 2 years of treatment. Figure 10 depicts the changes in axial length in millimeters (yellow bars going up); spherical equivalent in diopters calculated from the axial length data (red going down); and cycloplegic automated refractor measurements in diopters (green going down) at the end of the 24-month treatment period. The measurements were derived from the ATOM 1 study for atropine 1% and placebo and ATOM 2 for atropine 0.01%, 0.1%, and 0.5%, respectively. It is readily apparent that there is no real difference between axial length measurements after 24 months between placebo and atropine 0.01%; moderate changes with atropine 0.1% and 0.5%; and dramatic changes with atropine 1% (yellow bars). However, the spherical equivalent measurements (green bars), compared with placebo in diopters, show a much greater change over time again being greatest for atropine 1%. The difference between the effect of atropine 0.01% and atropine 1% is not nearly as great as the concentration differences.

After 2 years, all participants in the ATOM 2 study discontinued the use of atropine for 1 year. At the end of that year, 24% of the 0.01% group, 59% of the 0.1% group, and 68% of the 0.5% groups in the original ATOM 2 trial progressed more than 0.5 D of myopia and were retreated with 0.01% atropine for an additional 2 years.211 This rebound effect was much greater with cycloplegic refractions as compared to AL changes. The “rebound effect” observed in the ATOM studies can be partially explained by the fact that atropine has greater cycloplegic effect than 1% cyclopentolate used for the follow-up refractions, creating an impression that atropine slows the progression of myopia more than it really does in the first year. This creates an impression of the rebound effect, which is, in fact, much smaller than what is observed when doing cycloplegic refractions. Because atropine suppresses the signal for axial elongation, an abrupt stopping of higher dosages would result in faster elongation than discontinuation of lower concentrations. These findings suggest that atropine use should be tapered down rather than be abruptly discontinued.212

After stopping the use of atropine drops for 1 year, the patients were re-assessed.213 It was found that the progression of myopia have resumed in some patients or appeared to have completely stopped in others. Those patients, in whom progression stopped, were presumed to be abated (future data are needed to substantiate this claim), whereas progression continued in others. Those with continued progression after phase 2 were restarted on 0.01% atropine and reassessed 2 years later (total of 5 years).211 Those who did not progress after the discontinuation phase usually did not progress during the next 2 years of observation. The authors concluded that 0.01% atropine was more effective than the higher dosages in slowing the progression of myopia. A recent meta-analysis suggests that there is no clinical difference between the effectively of low and high concentrations of atropine to slow the progression of myopia.214 As mentioned previously, this conclusion must be viewed cautiously in light of AL measurements.

The rebound results also need to be evaluated with caution: clinicians do not usually put patients on 1% atropine for 2 years and then stop the medication. Patients are usually treated with atropine for many years without interruptions. Studies, in which 1% atropine has been used for many years, found that atropine did not lose its effectiveness over the long run. The subjects who were least affected by the atropine treatment had the following characteristics: (1) 2 myopic parents, (2) developed myopia earlier, and (3) progressed more than the average of 0.66 D/year.

The 5 years of data suggest that 0.01% atropine was more effective (and with fewer side effects) in slowing progression of myopia compared with higher concentrations of the drug. One must keep in mind, however, that in normal clinical practice, atropine treatment is typically continued for more than 2 years without interruption. In summary, these findings suggest that myopia did not progress with 0.01% atropine in the first 2 years of the study. Myopia did not progress once treatment was stopped (discontinuation phase), and individuals no longer needed further treatment to slow myopia.

Those who progressed more than 0.5 D, when atropine was discontinued, were more likely to have been on a higher dosage and needed further treatment. These data suggest that over the long run, 0.01% atropine is more effective than higher concentrations and causes minimal symptoms secondary to pupillary dilation or loss of accommodation, and the 0.01% concentration can be used for 5 years and then stopped. If progression recurs, treatment with 0.01% atropine can be resumed. If higher concentrations of atropine are required atropine 0.02% may be tried, the treatment should be stopped gradually by tapering down the concentration of the drug.209 The ATOM 2 study does provide compelling support to begin treatment of myopia with 0.01% atropine, but our clinical experience is that it might be less effective than suggested. In addition, if one uses AL measurements rather than refractive error to monitor effectively of 0.01% atropine versus control to slow myopic progression, it is apparent that there is no difference between the 2 treatment arms.

Time Spent Outdoors

Several recent studies suggest that time spent outdoors slows both onset and progression of myopia in children.215–224 It was also found that the effect of outdoor activities on myopia is not necessarily related to physical activity and that the shear exposure to outdoor environment has therapeutic effect.217 These findings triggered a number of investigations trying to pinpoint the exact factor(s) responsible for the effect of outdoor activities on myopia. Several studies suggested that exposure to brighter light, increased levels of vitamin D, increased levels of dopamine, or UV light by itself are responsible for the effect of outdoors on myopia onset and progression.225–234 However, further studies essentially ruled out the role of vitamin D and UV light in the inhibition of myopia development by exposure to outdoors.235,236

Recently Torii et al.234 demonstrated that violet light (VL) (360–400 nm wavelength) suppresses myopia progression in chicks and humans. They retrospectively measured the AL elongation among myopic children, who wore either VL blocked eyeglasses or one of two types of contact lenses (partially VL blocking and VL transmitting). They found that the VL transmitting contact lenses suppressed myopia progression more than VL blocking lenses. They suggested that because VL exposure is limited by UV protection from being indoors; filtered out UV by panel window glass; and filtered out UV by glasses, some contact lenses and sunglasses that increased VL exposure may be a preventive strategy against myopia progression.

There is, also, evidence that increasing the illumination in classrooms decreases the incidence of myopia.237 Bright light was also shown to inhibit form-deprivation myopia and reduce lens-induced (defocus-induced) myopia in animal studies.227–231 However, there is no information whether bright light might have caused animals to close their eyes because of photophobia caused by high light intensity, thus, reducing visual input. Moreover, studies that assessed the effect of outdoors on myopia did not take into account the use of sunglasses in bright light, which would reduce the importance of bright light exposure and emphasize other factors. Such factors would be the overall substantial differences in the visual environment between indoors and outdoors.238 The indoor activities create far more hyperopic defocus (causing myopia) across the entire surface of the retina than any outdoors activities. Outdoor activities essentially eliminate any defocus across the entire visual field that serves as a stop signal for the eye growth (thus, inhibiting development of myopia). Brighter light intensity also leads to pupil constriction and increased depth of focus, which reduces optical blur and increases contrast. Change in contrast, in turn, would affect the function of amacrine cells, which might explain the role of dopamine in myopia development in animal models. Although the exact mechanism responsible for the effect of outdoor activities on myopia is unknown, spending more time outdoors clearly has a substantial therapeutic effect on myopia onset and possibly progression. Therefore, it should be recommended that children, especially those who have two myopic parents or show signs of myopia development or progression, spend more time outdoors as preventive measure of developing myopia.


In summary, there is strong evidence that myopia is a result of an interaction between genes and environment and can be slowed by a variety of treatments. Parents should be aware of what is and is not effective including the risks and benefits associated with each treatment option (Figs 11 and 12). Despite none of these interventions having FDA approval/clearance at this time to treat myopia progression, we believe that with informed consent, an appropriate treatment plan should be instituted. Today, treatment preferences seem to vary by country and profession. More eye care professionals in China advocate the use of OK; whereas in Taiwan and Singapore, more advocate atropine; and in the United States, some eye care professionals prescribe soft multifocal contact lenses, and/or advocate OK and some ophthalmologists advocate atropine. In Taiwan, over 60% of the children with myopia are on atropine.239 Recently, there are data supporting the additive effects of optically correcting myopic children with OK and low dosages of atropine, that is, after a year in the study “OK only patients” increased AL by 0.19 mm, whereas “OK and atropine” increased AL by 0.09 mm.240 Because they use different stop mechanisms, it is not surprising that their effects are additive. There is obviously the need for more studies into the mechanisms of myopia and refractive eye development, but the future is encouraging.

FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.:
Meta-analysis of 16 different treatments. A meta-analysis243 of 16 different treatments for myopia was performed using a comparison with either placebo or single-vision spectacle lenses with the following: high-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.68; axial length change –0.21); moderate-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53; axial length change: –0.21); low-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53 axial length change: –0.15); pirenzepine (refraction change: 0.29; axial length change: –0.09); OK (axial length change: –0.15); multifocal contact lenses (axial length change: –0.11); and progressive-addition spectacle lenses (refraction change: 0.14 axial length change). Reprinted with permission from Huang J, Wen D, Wang Q, et al. Efficacy comparison of 16 interventions for myopia control in children: A network meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2016;123:697–708.
FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.:
Percentage of reduction of myopia progression with various treatments. Calculated percentage of reduction of progression of myopia for each treatment. Meta-analysis numbers243 were used to calculate the reduction in progression. Meta-analysis only included prospective clinical trials. Cooper et al.81 previously calculated the reduction in progression from all published studies without regard to methodology.

Ongoing research already provided some insights into molecular pathways underlying myopia and could be expected that it will soon produce new drug targets and drugs for treatment of myopia. In the meantime, children who have high-risk factors (myopia first noted around 4 or 5 years. with aggressive progression and parental myopia) should probably be started with 1% atropine. One might consider the prophylactic use of atropine 0.01% in children with a strong risk of development of myopia, that is, 2 parents being myopic and decreasing hyperopia of 0.5 D/year. On the other hand, children who become myopic after the age of 8 can be treated with 0.01% atropine, soft multifocal contact lenses or OK. In addition, patients with more than 6 diopters of myopia can wear soft multifocal contact lenses or a combination of OK contact lenses and glasses to obtain an effective treatment result.241 Because soft multifocal contact lenses, OK and low dosage of atropine seem to be equally effective,242 patient concerns and compliance may help guide treatment selection.

Some children tend to prefer their glasses and thus require atropine. Children who are more athletic usually prefer OK or soft multifocal contact lenses. Parents who are fearful of overnight contact lens wear often choose low concentrations of atropine or soft multifocal contact lenses, whereas parents/patients concerned about the long-term effects of atropine usually choose OK. Some patients are concerned with the risks of OK associated with sleeping in lenses, whereas others are concerned about the long-term effects of atropine even at low dosages. In addition, distance center soft contact lenses may have a better indication in myopes with less than −2.00 D because effectiveness is related initial refractive error. We often prescribe distance center soft multifocal contact lenses even though the published clinical evidence is not yet as strong; however, the perceived risk is less. Finally, children should be encouraged to spend more time outside and the public and policymakers should be informed of the potential benefits of outdoor activities, so that school schedules, perhaps, could be adjusted to allow more time for outdoor activities during school hours and after school.


1. Flitcroft DI. The complex interactions of retinal, optical and environmental factors in myopia aetiology. Prog Retin Eye Res 2012;31:622–660.
2. Holden BA. The Charles F. Prentice award Lecture 2014: A 50-year research journey: Giants and Great Collaborators. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92:741–749.
3. Tkatchenko AV, Tkatchenko TV, Guggenheim JA, et al. APLP2 regulates refractive error and myopia development in mice and humans. PLoS Genet 2015;11:e1005432.
4. Pararajasegaram R. VISION 2020-the right to sight: From strategies to action. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;128:359–360.
5. Kempen JH, Mitchell P, Lee KE, et al. The prevalence of refractive errors among adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:495–505.
6. Javitt JC, Chiang YP. The socioeconomic aspects of laser refractive surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:1526–1530.
7. Vitale S, Sperduto RD, Ferris FL III. Increased prevalence of myopia in the United States between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:1632–1639.
8. Lin LL, Shih YF, Hsiao CK, et al. Prevalence of myopia in Taiwanese schoolchildren: 1983 to 2000. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2004;33:27–33.
9. Lam CS, Goldschmidt E, Edwards MH. Prevalence of myopia in local and international schools in Hong Kong. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:317–322.
10. Niroula DR, Saha CG. Study on the refractive errors of school going children of Pokhara city in Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2009;7:67–72.
11. Vitale S, Cotch MF, Sperduto R, et al. Costs of refractive correction of distance vision impairment in the United States, 1999-2002. Ophthalmology 2006;113:2163–2170.
12. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Shih-Yen EC, et al. Myopia and associated pathological complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005;25:381–391.
13. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. A quality of life comparison of people wearing spectacles or contact lenses or having undergone refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 2006;22:19–27.
14. Rose K, Harper R, Tromans C, et al. Quality of life in myopia. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1031–1034.
15. Takashima T, Yokoyama T, Futagami S, et al. The quality of life in patients with pathologic myopia. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2001;45:84–92.
16. Holden B, Sankaridurg P, Smith E, et al. Myopia, an underrated global challenge to vision: Where the current data takes us on myopia control. Eye (Lond) 2014;28:142–146.
17. Arevalo JF, Ramirez E, Suarez E, et al. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment after laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the correction of myopia. Retina 2000;20:338–341.
18. Arevalo JF, Azar-Arevalo O. Retinal detachment in myopic eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:825–826.
19. Steidl SM, Pruett RC. Macular complications associated with posterior staphyloma. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;123:181–187.
20. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1036–1042.
21. Wu PC, Tsai CL, Gordon GM, et al. Chondrogenesis in scleral stem/progenitor cells and its association with form-deprived myopia in mice. Mol Vis 2015;21:138–147.
22. Morgan IG. The biological basis of myopic refractive error. Clin Exp Optom 2003;86:276–288.
23. Young TL. Molecular genetics of human myopia: An update. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:E8–E22.
24. Baird PN, Schache M, Dirani M. The GEnes in Myopia (GEM) study in understanding the aetiology of refractive errors. Prog Retin Eye Res 2010;29:520–542.
25. Wojciechowski R. Nature and nurture: The complex genetics of myopia and refractive error. Clin Genet 2011;79:301–320.
26. Parssinen O, Lyyra AL. Myopia and myopic progression among schoolchildren: A three-year follow-up study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:2794–2802.
27. Goss DA. Nearwork and myopia. Lancet 2000;356:1456–1457.
28. Hepsen IF, Evereklioglu C, Bayramlar H. The effect of reading and near-work on the development of myopia in emmetropic boys: A prospective, controlled, three-year follow-up study. Vision Res 2001;41:2511–2520.
29. Saw SM, Chua WH, Hong CY, et al. Nearwork in early-onset myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:332–339.
30. Wong L, Coggon D, Cruddas M, et al. Education, reading, and familial tendency as risk factors for myopia in Hong Kong fishermen. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993;47:50–53.
31. Saw SM, Wu HM, Seet B, et al. Academic achievement, close up work parameters, and myopia in Singapore military conscripts. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;857:855–860.
32. Li SM, Li SY, Kang MT, et al. Near work related parameters and myopia in Chinese children: The Anyang Childhood Eye study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134514.
33. Mutti DO, Zadnik K. Has near work's star fallen? Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:76–78.
34. Zylbermann R, Landau D, Berson D. The influence of study habits on myopia in Jewish teenagers. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1993;30:319–322.
35. Saw SM, Tan SB, Fung D, et al. IQ and the association with myopia in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:2943–2948.
36. Williams C, Miller LL, Gazzard G, et al. A comparison of measures of reading and intelligence as risk factors for the development of myopia in a UK cohort of children. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:1117–1121.
37. Czepita D, Lodygowska E, Czepita M. Are children with myopia more intelligent? A literature review. Ann Acad Med Stetin 2008;54:13–16; discussion 16.
38. Pan CW, Ramamurthy D, Saw SM. Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012;32:3–16.
39. Lee YY, Lo CT, Sheu SJ, et al. What factors are associated with myopia in young Adults? A survey study in Taiwan military conscripts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:1026–1033.
40. Saw SM, Cheng A, Fong A, et al. School grades and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007;27:126–129.
41. Zadnik K, Mutti DO. Refractive error changes in law students. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987;64:558–561.
42. Ip JM, Rose KA, Morgan IG, et al. Myopia and the urban environment: Findings in a sample of 12-year-old Australian school children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:3858–3863.
43. Cortinez MF, Chiappe JP, Iribarren R. Prevalence of refractive errors in a population of office-workers in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2008;15:10–16.
44. Ip JM, Saw SM, Rose KA, et al. Role of near work in myopia: Findings in a sample of Australian school children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:2903–2910.
45. Ting PW, Lam CS, Edwards MH, et al. Prevalence of myopia in a group of Hong Kong microscopists. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:88–93.
46. Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, et al. Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:690–694.
47. Seidemann A, Schaeffel F. An evaluation of the lag of accommodation using photorefraction. Vision Res 2003;43:419–430.
48. Gwiazda J, Bauer J, Thorn F, et al. A dynamic relationship between myopia and blur-driven accommodation in school-aged children. Vision Res 1995;35:1299–1304.
49. Abbott ML, Schmid KL, Strang NC. Differences in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998;18:13–20.
50. Charman WN. Near vision, lags of accommodation and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999;19:126–133.
51. Gwiazda JE, Hyman L, Norton TT, et al. Accommodation and related risk factors associated with myopia progression and their interaction with treatment in COMET children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:2143–2151.
52. Shen W, Sivak JG. Eyes of a lower vertebrate are susceptible to the visual environment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:4829–4837.
53. Shen W, Vijayan M, Sivak JG. Inducing form-deprivation myopia in fish. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:1797–1803.
54. Kroger RH, Wagner HJ. The eye of the blue acara (Aequidens pulcher, Cichlidae) grows to compensate for defocus due to chromatic aberration. J Comp Physiol A 1996;179:837–842.
55. Wallman J, Turkel J, Trachtman J. Extreme myopia produced by modest change in early visual experience. Science 1978;201:1249–1251.
56. Irving EL, Sivak JG, Callender MG. Refractive plasticity of the developing chick eye. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992;12:448–456.
57. Irving EL, Callender MG, Sivak JG. Inducing myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism in chicks. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:364–368.
58. Sherman SM, Norton TT, Casagrande VA. Myopia in the lid-sutured tree shrew (Tupaia glis). Brain Res 1977;124:154–157.
59. Cottriall CL, McBrien NA. The M1 muscarinic antagonist pirenzepine reduces myopia and eye enlargement in the tree shrew. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37:1368–1379.
60. Raviola E, Wiesel TN. An animal model of myopia. N Engl J Med 1985;312:1609–1615.
61. Wiesel TN, Raviola E. Myopia and eye enlargement after neonatal lid fusion in monkeys. Nature 1977;266:66–68.
62. Whatham AR, Judge SJ. Compensatory changes in eye growth and refraction induced by daily wear of soft contact lenses in young marmosets. Vision Res 2001;41:267–273.
63. Smith EL III, Bradley DV, Fernandes A, et al. Form deprivation myopia in adolescent monkeys. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:428–432.
64. Smith EL III, Hung LF. The role of optical defocus in regulating refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res 1999;39:1415–1435.
65. Howlett MH, McFadden SA. Spectacle lens compensation in the pigmented guinea pig. Vision Res 2009;49:219–227.
66. Howlett MH, McFadden SA. Form-deprivation myopia in the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus). Vision Res 2006;46:267–283.
67. Tkatchenko TV, Shen Y, Tkatchenko AV. Mouse experimental myopia has features of primate myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:1297–1303.
68. Raviola E, Wiesel TN. Effect of dark-rearing on experimental myopia in monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1978;17:485–488.
69. Wallman J, Gottlieb MD, Rajaram V, et al. Local retinal regions control local eye growth and myopia. Science 1987;237:73–77.
70. Schaeffel F, Troilo D, Wallman J, Howland HC. Developing eyes that lack accommodation grow to compensate for imposed defocus. Vis Neurosci 1990;4:177–183.
71. Smith EL III, Hung LF, Huang J, et al. Effects of optical defocus on refractive development in monkeys: Evidence for local, regionally selective mechanisms. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:3864–3873.
72. Troilo D, Wallman J. The regulation of eye growth and refractive state: An experimental study of emmetropization. Vision Res 1991;31:1237–1250.
73. Zhou X, Lu F, Xie R, et al. Recovery from axial myopia induced by a monocularly deprived facemask in adolescent (7-week-old) guinea pigs. Vision Res 2007;47:1103–1111.
74. Troilo D, Gottlieb MD, Wallman J. Visual deprivation causes myopia in chicks with optic nerve section. Curr Eye Res 1987;6:993–999.
75. Smith EL III, Huang J, Hung LF, et al. Hemiretinal form deprivation: Evidence for local control of eye growth and refractive development in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:5057–5069.
76. Rada JA, Shelton S, Norton TT. The sclera and myopia. Exp Eye Res 2006;82:185–200.
77. Smith EL III, Hung LF, Huang J. Relative peripheral hyperopic defocus alters central refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res 2009;49:2386–2392.
78. Smith EL III. Prentice award lecture 2010: A case for peripheral optical treatment strategies for myopia. Optom Vis Sci 2011;88:1029–1044.
79. Smith EL III, Ramamirtham R, Qiao-Grider Y, et al. Effects of foveal ablation on emmetropization and form-deprivation myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:3914–3922.
80. Wildsoet C, Pettigrew J. Experimental myopia and anomalous eye growth patterns unaffected by optic nerve section in chickens: Evidence for local control of eye growth. Clin Vis Sci 1988;3:99–107.
81. Cooper J, Schulman E, Jamal N. Current status on the development and treatment of myopia. Optometry 2012;83:179–199.
82. Tan NW, Saw SM, Lam DS, et al. Temporal variations in myopia progression in Singaporean children within an academic year. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:465–472.
83. Fan DS, Lam DS, Lam RF, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and progression of myopia of school children in Hong Kong. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:1071–1075.
84. Donovan L, Sankaridurg P, Ho A, et al. Myopia progression rates in urban children wearing single-vision spectacles. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:27–32.
85. Mutti DO, Hayes JR, Mitchell GL, et al. Refractive error, axial length, and relative peripheral refractive error before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:2510–2519.
86. Donovan L, Sankaridurg P, Ho A, et al. Myopia progression in Chinese children is slower in summer than in winter. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:1196–1202.
87. Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DA. Seasonal variation in myopia progression and ocular elongation. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:46–51.
88. COMET Group. Myopia stabilization and associated factors among participants in the correction of myopia evaluation trial (COMET). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:7871–7884.
89. Fernandez-Montero A, Olmo-Jimenez JM, Olmo N, et al. The impact of computer use in myopia progression: A cohort study in Spain. Prev Med 2015;71:67–71.
90. Bullimore MA, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, et al. A retrospective study of myopia progression in adult contact lens wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:2110–2113.
91. Lyhne N, Sjolie AK, Kyvik KO, et al. The importance of genes and environment for ocular refraction and its determiners: A population based study among 20-45 year old twins. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:1470–1476.
92. Hammond CJ, Snieder H, Gilbert CE, et al. Genes and environment in refractive error: The twin eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:1232–1236.
93. Dirani M, Chamberlain M, Shekar SN, et al. Heritability of refractive error and ocular biometrics: The genes in myopia (GEM) twin study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:4756–4761.
94. Teikari JM, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo MK, et al. Heritability estimate for refractive errors–a population-based sample of adult twins. Genet Epidemiol 1988;5:171–181.
95. Lopes MC, Andrew T, Carbonaro F, et al. Estimating heritability and shared environmental effects for refractive error in twin and family studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:126–131.
96. Pacella R, McLellan J, Grice K, et al. Role of genetic factors in the etiology of juvenile-onset myopia based on a longitudinal study of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:381–386.
97. Dirani M, Shekar SN, Baird PN. Evidence of shared genes in refraction and axial length: The genes in myopia (GEM) twin study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:4336–4339.
98. Jones-Jordan LA, Sinnott LT, Manny RE, et al. Early childhood refractive error and parental history of myopia as predictors of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:115–121.
99. Dirani M, Shekar SN, Baird PN. Adult-onset myopia: The genes in myopia (GEM) twin study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:3324–3327.
100. Teikari J, Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J, et al. Study of gene-environment effects on development of hyperopia: A study of 191 adult twin pairs from the Finnish twin cohort study. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma) 1990;39:133–136.
101. Tsai MY, Lin LL, Lee V, et al. Estimation of heritability in myopic twin studies. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2009;53:615–622.
102. Young TL, Ronan SM, Drahozal LA, et al. Evidence that a locus for familial high myopia maps to chromosome 18p. Am J Hum Genet 1998;63:109–119.
103. Young TL, Ronan SM, Alvear AB, et al. A second locus for familial high myopia maps to chromosome 12q. Am J Hum Genet 1998;63:1419–1424.
104. Naiglin L, Gazagne C, Dallongeville F, et al. A genome wide scan for familial high myopia suggests a novel locus on chromosome 7q36. J Med Genet 2002;39:118–124.
105. Lam DS, Tam PO, Fan DS, et al. Familial high myopia linkage to chromosome 18p. Ophthalmologica 2003;217:115–118.
106. Paluru P, Ronan SM, Heon E, et al. New locus for autosomal dominant high myopia maps to the long arm of chromosome 17. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:1830–1836.
107. Farbrother JE, Kirov G, Owen MJ, et al. Linkage analysis of the genetic loci for high myopia on 18p, 12q, and 17q in 51 U.K. families. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:2879–2885.
108. Stambolian D, Ibay G, Reider L, et al. Genomewide linkage scan for myopia susceptibility loci among Ashkenazi Jewish families shows evidence of linkage on chromosome 22q12. Am J Hum Genet 2004;75:448–459.
109. Zhang Q, Guo X, Xiao X, et al. A new locus for autosomal dominant high myopia maps to 4q22-q27 between D4S1578 and D4S1612. Mol Vis 2005;11:554–560.
110. Paluru PC, Nallasamy S, Devoto M, et al. Identification of a novel locus on 2q for autosomal dominant high-grade myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2300–2307.
111. Stambolian D, Ciner EB, Reider LC, et al. Genome-wide scan for myopia in the old order amish. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;140:469–476.
112. Zhang Q, Guo X, Xiao X, et al. Novel locus for X linked recessive high myopia maps to Xq23-q25 but outside MYP1. J Med Genet 2006;43:e20.
113. Nallasamy S, Paluru PC, Devoto M, et al. Genetic linkage study of high-grade myopia in a Hutterite population from South Dakota. Mol Vis 2007;13:229–236.
114. Yu ZQ, Li YB, Huang CX, et al. A genome-wide screening for pathological myopia suggests a novel locus on chromosome 15q12-13 (article in Chinese). Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 2007;43:233–238.
115. Paget S, Julia S, Vitezica ZG, et al. Linkage analysis of high myopia susceptibility locus in 26 families. Mol Vis 2008;14:2566–2574.
116. Ciner E, Wojciechowski R, Ibay G, et al. Genomewide scan of ocular refraction in African-American families shows significant linkage to chromosome 7p15. Genet Epidemiol 2008;32:454–463.
117. Lam CY, Tam PO, Fan DS, et al. A genome-wide scan maps a novel high myopia locus to 5p15. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:3768–3778.
118. Schache M, Chen CY, Pertile KK, et al. Fine mapping linkage analysis identifies a novel susceptibility locus for myopia on chromosome 2q37 adjacent to but not overlapping MYP12. Mol Vis 2009;15:722–730.
119. Yang Z, Xiao X, Li S, et al. Clinical and linkage study on a consanguineous Chinese family with autosomal recessive high myopia. Mol Vis 2009;15:312–318.
120. Nishizaki R, Ota M, Inoko H, et al. New susceptibility locus for high myopia is linked to the uromodulin-like 1 (UMODL1) gene region on chromosome 21q22.3. Eye (Lond) 2009;23:222–229.
121. Ciner E, Ibay G, Wojciechowski R, et al. Genome-wide scan of African-American and white families for linkage to myopia. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;147:512–517.e512.
122. Li YJ, Guggenheim JA, Bulusu A, et al. An international collaborative family-based whole-genome linkage scan for high-grade myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:3116–3127.
123. Nakanishi H, Yamada R, Gotoh N, et al. A genome-wide association analysis identified a novel susceptible locus for pathological myopia at 11q24.1. PLoS Genet 2009;5:e1000660.
124. Ma JH, Shen SH, Zhang GW, et al. Identification of a locus for autosomal dominant high myopia on chromosome 5p13.3-p15.1 in a Chinese family. Mol Vis 2010;16:2043–2054.
125. Li YJ, Goh L, Khor CC, et al. Genome-wide association studies reveal genetic variants in CTNND2 for high myopia in Singapore Chinese. Ophthalmology 2011;118:368–375.
126. Solouki AM, Verhoeven VJ, van Duijn CM, et al. A genome-wide association study identifies a susceptibility locus for refractive errors and myopia at 15q14. Nat Genet 2010;42:897–901.
127. Hysi PG, Young TL, Mackey DA, et al. A genome-wide association study for myopia and refractive error identifies a susceptibility locus at 15q25. Nat Genet 2010;42:902–905.
128. Verhoeven VJ, Hysi PG, Wojciechowski R, et al. Genome-wide meta-analyses of multiancestry cohorts identify multiple new susceptibility loci for refractive error and myopia. Nat Genet 2013;45:314–318.
129. Lango Allen H, Estrada K, Lettre G, et al. Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature 2010;467:832–838.
130. Brennan NA. Predicted reduction in high myopia for various degrees of myopia control. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2012;35(Suppl 1):e14–e15.
131. Rosenfield M, Gilmartin B. Accommodative error, adaptation and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999;19:159–164.
132. Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Held R. Accommodation, accommodative convergence, and response AC/A ratios before and at the onset of myopia in children. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:273–278.
133. Goss DA. Variables related to the rate of childhood myopia progression. Optom Vis Sci 1990;67:631–636.
134. Parssinen O, Hemminki E. Spectacle-use, bifocals and prevention of myopic progression. The two-years results of a randomized trial among schoolchildren. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl 1988;185:156–161.
135. Goss DA, Grosvenor T. Rates of childhood myopia progression with bifocals as a function of nearpoint phoria: Consistency of three studies. Optom Vis Sci 1990;67:637–640.
136. Gwiazda JE, Hyman L, Everett D, et al. Five-year results from the correction of myopia evaluation trial (COMET). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47: E–abstract 1166.
137. Kurtz D, Hyman L, Gwiazda JE, et al. Role of parental myopia in the progression of myopia and its interaction with treatment in COMET children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:562–570.
138. Cheng D, Schmid KL, Woo GC, et al. Randomized trial of effect of bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles on myopic progression: Two-year results. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:12–19.
139. Li SM, Ji YZ, Wu SS, et al. Multifocal versus single vision lenses intervention to slow progression of myopia in school-age children: A meta-analysis. Surv Ophthalmol 2011;56:451–460.
140. Sankaridurg P, Donovan L, Varnas S, et al. Spectacle lenses designed to reduce progression of myopia: 12-month results. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:631–641.
141. Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res 2002;42:2555–2559.
142. Adler D, Millodot M. The possible effect of undercorrection on myopic progression in children. Clin Exp Optom 2006;89:315–321.
143. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Mutti DO, et al. A randomized trial of the effects of rigid contact lenses on myopia progression. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1760–1766.
144. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott L, et al. A randomized trial of the effect of soft contact lenses on myopia progression in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:4702–4706.
145. Reim T, Lund M, Wu R. Orthokeratology and adolescent myopia control. Contact Lens Spectr 2003;18:40–42.
146. Lui WO, Edwards MH. Orthokeratology in low myopia. Part 1: Efficacy and predictability. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2000;23:77–89.
147. Walline JJ, Rah MJ, Jones LA. The children's overnight orthokeratology investigation (COOKI) pilot study. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:407–413.
148. Cho P, Cheung SW, Edwards M. The longitudinal orthokeratology research in children (LORIC) in Hong Kong: A pilot study on refractive changes and myopic control. Curr Eye Res 2005;30:71–80.
149. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:1181–1185.
150. Kakita T, Hiraoka T, Oshika T. Influence of overnight orthokeratology on axial elongation in childhood myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:2170–2174.
151. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Villa-Collar C, Gilmartin B, et al. Myopia control with orthokeratology contact lenses in Spain (MCOS): Refractive and Biometric changes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:5060–5065.
152. Swarbrick HA, Alharbi A, Watt K, et al. Myopia control during orthokeratology lens wear in children using a novel study design. Ophthalmology 2015;122:620–630.
153. Kwok-Hei Mok A, Sin-Ting Chung C. Seven-year retrospective analysis of the myopic control effect of orthokeratology in children: A pilot study. Clin Optom 2011;3:1–4.
154. Hiraoka T, Kakita T, Okamoto F, et al. Long-term effect of overnight orthokeratology on axial length elongation in childhood myopia: A 5-year follow-up study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:3913–3919.
155. Sun Y, Xu F, Zhang T, et al. Orthokeratology to control myopia progression: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0124535.
156. Si JK, Tang K, Bi HS, et al. Orthokeratology for myopia control: A meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92:252–257.
157. Rah MJ, Jackson JM, Jones LA, et al. Overnight orthokeratology: Preliminary results of the lenses and overnight orthokeratology (LOOK) study. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:598–605.
158. Zhong X, Chen X, Xie RZ, et al. Differences between overnight and long-term wear of orthokeratology contact lenses in corneal contour, thickness, and cell density. Cornea 2009;28:271–279.
159. Yeh TN, Green HM, Zhou Y, et al. Short-term effects of overnight orthokeratology on corneal epithelial permeability and biomechanical properties. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:3902–3911.
160. Johnson KL, Carney LG, Mountford JA, et al. Visual performance after overnight orthokeratology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2007;30:29–36.
161. Van Meter WS, Musch DC, Jacobs DS, et al. Safety of overnight orthokeratology for myopia: A report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2008;115:2301–2313 e2301.
162. Bullimore MA. What can be done for my child? Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:381.
163. Stapleton F, Keay L, Edwards K, et al. The incidence of contact lens-related microbial keratitis in Australia. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1655–1662.
164. Bullimore MA, Sinnott LT, Jones-Jordan LA. The risk of microbial keratitis with overnight corneal reshaping lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:937–944.
165. Liu YM, Xie P. The safety of orthokeratology—A systematic review. Eye Contact Lens 2016;42:35–42.
166. Li SM, Kang MT, Wu SS, et al. Efficacy, safety and Acceptability of orthokeratology on slowing axial elongation in myopic children by meta-analysis. Curr Eye Res 2016;41:600–608.
167. Fu AC, Chen XL, Lv Y, et al. Higher spherical equivalent refractive errors is associated with slower axial elongation wearing orthokeratology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016;39:62–66.
168. Wang B, Naidu RK, Qu X. Factors related to axial length elongation and myopia progression in orthokeratology practice. PLoS One 2017;12:e0175913.
169. Cho P, Cheung SW. Discontinuation of orthokeratology on eyeball elongation (DOEE). Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2017;40:82–87.
170. Anstice NS, Phillips JR. Effect of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on axial myopia progression in children. Ophthalmology 2011;118:1152–1161.
171. Sankaridurg P, Holden B, Smith E III, et al. Decrease in rate of myopia progression with a contact lens designed to reduce relative peripheral hyperopia: One-year results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:9362–9367.
172. Holden B, Sankaridurg P, Lazon P, et al. Central and peripheral visual performance of a novel contact lens designed to control progression of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52: E-Abstract 6518. 2011.
173. Woods J, Guthrie SE, Keir N, et al. Inhibition of defocus-induced myopia in chickens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:2662–2668.
174. Woods j, Guthrie S, Keir N, et al. The effect of a Unique lens designed for myopia progression control (MPC) on the level of induced myopia in chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52: E-Abstract 6651. 2011.
175. Walline JJ, Greiner KL, McVey ME, et al. Multifocal contact lens myopia control. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:1207–1214.
176. Paune J, Morales H, Armengol J, et al. Myopia control with a novel peripheral gradient soft lens and orthokeratology: A 2-year clinical trial. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:507572.
177. Aller TA, Liu M, Wildsoet CF. Myopia control with bifocal contact lenses: A randomized clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci 2016;93:344–352.
178. Li SM, Kang MT, Wu SS, et al. Studies using concentric ring bifocal and peripheral add multifocal contact lenses to slow myopia progression in school-aged children: A meta-analysis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2017;37:51–59.
179. Turnbull PR, Munro OJ, Phillips JR. Contact lens methods for clinical myopia control. Optom Vis Sci 2016;93:1120–1126.
180. Cooper J, O'Connor B, Watanabe R, et al. Case series analysis of myopic progression control with a Unique extended depth of focus multifocal contact lens. Eye Contact Lens 2017 [epub ahead of print].
181. Gimbel HV. The control of myopia with atropine. Can J Ophthalmol 1973;8:527–532.
182. Kelly TS, Chatfield C, Tustin G. Clinical assessment of the arrest of myopia. Br J Ophthalmol 1975;59:529–538.
183. Dyer JA. Role of cyclopegics in progressive myopia. Ophthalmology 1979;86:692–694.
184. Sampson WG. Role of cycloplegia in the management of functional myopia. Ophthalmology 1979;86:695–697.
185. Bedrossian RH. The treatment of myopia with atropine and bifocals: A long-term prospective study. Ophthalmology 1985;92:716.
186. Bedrossian RH. The effect of atropine on myopia. Ophthalmology 1979;86:713–719.
187. Bedrossian RH. The effect of atropine on myopia. Ann Ophthalmol 1971;3:891–897.
188. Gruber E. Treatment of myopia with atropine and bifocals. Ophthalmology 1985;92:985.
189. Brodstein RS, Brodstein DE, Olson RJ, et al. The treatment of myopia with atropine and bifocals. A long-term prospective study. Ophthalmology 1984;91:1373–1379.
190. Brenner RL. Further observations on use of atropine in the treatment of myopia. Ann Ophthalmol 1985;17:137–140.
191. Yen MY, Liu JH, Kao SC, et al. Comparison of the effect of atropine and cyclopentolate on myopia. Ann Ophthalmol 1989;21:180–182, 187.
192. Kennedy RH, Dyer JA, Kennedy MA, et al. Reducing the progression of myopia with atropine: A long term cohort study of Olmsted county students. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 2000;15(3 Suppl):281–304.
193. Kennedy RH. Progression of myopia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1995;93:755–800.
194. McBrien NA, Moghaddam HO, Reeder AP. Atropine reduces experimental myopia and eye enlargement via a nonaccommodative mechanism. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:205–215.
195. Schaeffel F, Troilo D, Wallman J, et al. Developing eyes that lack accommodation grow to compensate for imposed defocus. Vis Neurosci 1990;4:177–183.
196. Zou L, Liu R, Zhang X, et al. Upregulation of regulator of G-protein signaling 2 in the sclera of a form deprivation myopic animal model. Mol Vis 2014;20:977–987.
197. Gallego P, Martinez-Garcia C, Perez-Merino P, et al. Scleral changes induced by atropine in chicks as an experimental model of myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012;32:478–484.
198. Barathi VA, Beuerman RW. Molecular mechanisms of muscarinic receptors in mouse scleral fibroblasts: Prior to and after induction of experimental myopia with atropine treatment. Mol Vis 2011;17:680–692.
199. Prepas SB. Light, literacy and the absence of ultraviolet radiation in the development of myopia. Med Hypotheses 2008;70:635–637.
200. Chia A, Chua WH, Cheung YB, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: Safety and efficacy of 0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.01% doses (atropine for the treatment of myopia 2). Ophthalmology 2012;119:347–354.
201. North RV, Kelly ME. A review of the uses and adverse effects of topical administration of atropine. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1987;7:109–114.
202. Luu CD, Lau AM, Koh AH, et al. Multifocal electroretinogram in children on atropine treatment for myopia. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:151–153.
203. Chia A, Li W, Tan D, et al. Full-field electroretinogram findings in children in the atropine treatment for myopia (ATOM2) study. Doc Ophthalmol 2013;126:177–186.
204. Chiang MF, Kouzis A, Pointer RW, et al. Treatment of childhood myopia with atropine eyedrops and bifocal spectacles. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 2001;16:209–215.
205. Chua WH, Balakrishnan V, Chan YH, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia. Ophthalmology 2006;113:2285–2291.
206. Shih YF, Chen CH, Chou AC, et al. Effects of different concentrations of atropine on controlling myopia in myopic children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 1999;15:85–90.
207. Lu P, Chen J. Retarding progression of myopia with seasonal modification of topical atropine. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2010;5:75–81.
208. Fang PC, Chung MY, Yu HJ, et al. Prevention of myopia onset with 0.025% atropine in premyopic children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2010;26:341–345.
209. Cooper J, Eisenberg N, Schulman E, et al. Maximum atropine dose without clinical signs or symptoms. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:1467–1472.
210. Chia A, Chua WH, Wen L, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: Changes after stopping atropine 0.01%, 0.1% and 0.5%. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;157:451–457.e451.
211. Lee CY, Sun CC, Lin YF, et al. Effects of topical atropine on intraocular pressure and myopia progression: A prospective comparative study. BMC Ophthalmol 2016;16:114.
212. Chia A, Lu QS, Tan D. Five-year clinical trial on atropine for the treatment of myopia 2: Myopia control with atropine 0.01% eyedrops. Ophthalmology 2016;123:391–399.
213. Saw SM, Chua WH, Wu HM, et al. Myopia: Gene-environment interaction. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2000;29:290–297.
214. Gong Q, Janowski M, Luo M, et al. Efficacy and adverse effects of atropine in childhood myopia: A meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017;135:624–630.
215. Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, et al. Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1279–1285.
216. Dirani M, Tong L, Gazzard G, et al. Outdoor activity and myopia in Singapore teenage children. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:997–1000.
217. Guggenheim JA, Northstone K, McMahon G, et al. Time outdoors and physical activity as predictors of incident myopia in childhood: A prospective cohort study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:2856–2865.
218. He M, Xiang F, Zeng Y, et al. Effect of time spent outdoors at school on the development of myopia among children in China: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015;314:1142–1148.
219. Jones LA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO, et al. Parental history of myopia, sports and outdoor activities, and future myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:3524–3532.
220. Deng L, Gwiazda J, Thorn F. Children's refractions and visual activities in the school year and summer. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:406–413.
221. Guo Y, Liu LJ, Xu L, et al. Myopic shift and outdoor activity among primary school children: One-year follow-up study in Beijing. PLoS One 2013;8:e75260.
222. Guo Y, Liu LJ, Xu L, et al. Outdoor activity and myopia among primary students in rural and urban regions of Beijing. Ophthalmology 2013;120:277–283.
223. Wu PC, Tsai CL, Wu HL, et al. Outdoor activity during class recess reduces myopia onset and progression in school children. Ophthalmology 2013;120:1080–1085.
224. Jin JX, Hua WJ, Jiang X, et al. Effect of outdoor activity on myopia onset and progression in school-aged children in northeast China: The Sujiatun Eye Care study. BMC Ophthalmol 2015;15:73.
225. Mutti DO. Vitamin D may reduce the prevalence of myopia in Korean adolescents. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;55:2048.
226. Mutti DO, Marks AR. Blood levels of vitamin D in teens and young adults with myopia. Optom Vis Sci 2011;88:377–382.
227. Ashby R, Ohlendorf A, Schaeffel F. The effect of ambient illuminance on the development of deprivation myopia in chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:5348–5354.
228. Karouta C, Ashby RS. Correlation between light levels and the development of deprivation myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;56:299–309.
229. Smith EL III, Hung LF, Huang J. Protective effects of high ambient lighting on the development of form-deprivation myopia in rhesus monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:421–428.
230. Ashby RS, Schaeffel F. The effect of bright light on lens compensation in chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:5247–5253.
231. Smith EL III, Hung LF, Arumugam B, et al. Negative lens-induced myopia in infant monkeys: Effects of high ambient lighting. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:2959–2969.
232. Feldkaemper M, Schaeffel F. An updated view on the role of dopamine in myopia. Exp Eye Res 2013;114:106–119.
233. Zhou X, Pardue MT, Iuvone PM, et al. Dopamine signaling and myopia development: What are the key challenges. Prog Retin Eye Res 2017;61:60–71.
234. Torii H, Kurihara T, Seko Y, et al. Violet light exposure can be a preventive strategy against myopia progression. EBioMedicine 2017;15:210–219.
235. Rose KA, French AN, Morgan IG. Environmental factors and myopia: Paradoxes and prospects for prevention. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2016;5:403–410.
236. Schaeffel F, Smith EL III. Inhibiting myopia by (nearly) invisible light? EBioMedicine 2017;16:27–28.
237. Hua WJ, Jin JX, Wu XY, et al. Elevated light levels in schools have a protective effect on myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2015;35:252–262.
238. Ngo C, Saw SM, Dharani R, et al. Does sunlight (bright lights) explain the protective effects of outdoor activity against myopia? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2013;33:368–372.
239. Fang YT, Chou YJ, Pu C, et al. Prescription of atropine eye drops among children diagnosed with myopia in Taiwan from 2000 to 2007: A nationwide study. Eye (Lond) 2013;27:418–424.
240. Kinoshita N, Konno Y, Hamada N, Kakehashi A. Suppressive effect of combined treatment of orthokeratology and 0.01% atropine instillation on axial length elongation in childhood myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017;58:2386.
241. Charm J, Cho P. High myopia-partial reduction ortho-k: A 2-year randomized study. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:530–539.
242. Lin HJ, Wan L, Tsai FJ, et al. Overnight orthokeratology is comparable with atropine in controlling myopia. BMC Ophthalmol 2014;14:40.
243. Huang J, Wen D, Wang Q, et al. Efficacy comparison of 16 interventions for myopia control in children: A network meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2016;123:697–708.
244. Edwards MH, Li RW, Lam CS, et al. The Hong Kong progressive lens myopia control study: study design and main findings. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:2852–2858.
245. Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE. A randomized trial of the effect of single-vision vs. bifocal lenses on myopia progression in children with esophoria. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:395–401.
246. Gwiazda J, Hyman L, Hussein M, et al. A randomized clinical trial of progressive addition lenses versus single vision lenses on the progression of myopia in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:1492–1500.
247. Hasebe S, Ohtsuki H, Nonaka T, et al. Effect of progressive addition lenses on myopia progression in Japanese children: a prospective, randomized, double-masked, crossover trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:2781–2789.
248. Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:346–354.
249. Parssinen O, Hemminki E, Klemetti A. Effect of spectacle use and accommodation on myopic progression: final results of a three-year randomised clinical trial among schoolchildren. Br J Ophthalmol 1989;73:547–551.
250. Shih YF, Hsiao CK, Chen CJ, et al. An intervention trial on efficacy of atropine and multi-focal glasses in controlling myopic progression. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001;79:233–236.
251. Yang Z, Lan W, Ge J, et al. The effectiveness of progressive addition lenses on the progression of myopia in Chinese children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009;29:41–48.
252. Chen C, Cheung SW, Cho P. Myopia control using toric orthokeratology (TO-SEE study). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:6510–6517.
253. Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of myopia in Orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:7077–7085.
254. Zhu MJ, Feng HY, He XG, et al. The control effect of orthokeratology on axial length elongation in Chinese children with myopia. BMC Ophthalmol 2014;14:141.
255. Lam CS, Tang WC, Tse DY, et al. Defocus Incorporated Soft Contact (DISC) lens slows myopia progression in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:40–45.
256. Fujikado T, Ninomiya S, Kobayashi T, et al. Effect of low-addition soft contact lenses with decentered optical design on myopia progression in children: a pilot study. Clin Ophthalmol 2014;8:1947–1956.
    257. Cheng X, Xu J, Chehab K, et al. Soft contact lenses with positive spherical aberration for myopia control. Optom Vis Sci 2016;93:353–366.

    Myopia; Myopia control; Atropine; Orthokeratology; Multifocal contact lenses; Progressive addition lenses; Axial elongation

    Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists.