Relatore
Descrizione
Purpose:
Publication bias occurs when studies with negative findings are less likely to be published, potentially overestimating treatment efficacy. This study aimed to assess the presence and impact of publication bias in research on myopia control interventions.
Methods:
A systematic search identified systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating spectacle-based, contact lens, and pharmacological myopia control treatments. Outcomes were mean changes in axial length and refractive error. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, and publication bias was assessed through funnel plots and Egger’s test.
Results:
Twenty-seven SRs and MAs comprising 49 eligible RCTs were analyzed. For axial length (41 RCTs), Egger’s test indicated potential bias only for pharmacological treatments (p = 0.045), but trim-and-fill analysis showed no overestimation of efficacy. For refractive error (46 RCTs), significant asymmetry was observed only for contact lens studies (Egger’s test; p = 0.006), although this did not indicate an overestimation of treatment efficacy. Subgroup analyses for atropine and multifocal contact lenses revealed no significant bias (all p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
No substantial publication bias was found across optical, contact lens, or pharmacological myopia control treatments. These findings suggest that the current evidence supporting myopia control strategies is robust and unlikely to be overestimated.
