Intention-to-Treat Analysis of Changes in Incident Myopia and Relevant Ocular Parameters After 1 Academic Year Between the Intervention and Control Groups
ocular abnormalities, myopia
SENSITIVITY, MYOPIA, SECONDARY, MYOPIA, CYCLOPLEGIA
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; SER, spherical equivalent refraction.Children with ocular abnormalities at baseline (n = 37) and follow-up visit (n = 42) were excluded from the analysis. Corresponding figures for unsuccessful cycloplegia were 197 and 125, respectively.Myopia incidence after 1 academic year was a secondary outcome. The remaining outcomes in this table were exploratory outcomes.The differences in the prevalence and incidence of myopia were compared by proportional Bonferroni correction was applied to multiple comparisons for secondary outcomes (physical fitness score and myopia incidence), and the corrected The mean (SD) overall physical fitness score at the end of 1 academic year was 81.49 (6.26) points in the intervention group and 76.24 (7.29) points in the control group, with an adjusted mean difference of 4.95 points (95% CI, 3.56-6.34; After 1 academic year, children in the intervention group (58 of 702 [8.3%]) had less incident myopia than those in the control group (74 of 728 [10.2%). However, the adjusted mean difference did not reach statistical significance (−1.90%; 95% CI, −18.72% to 14.91%; During the follow-up, the proportion of children with screen time greater than 30 minutes per day increased by 1.7% (from 25.3% at baseline to 27.0% after 1 academic year) in the intervention group and 5.4% (from 26.1% at baseline to 31.5% after 1 academic year) in the control group. Time spent on studying or reading was not significantly different between the 2 groups (mean [SD], 55.65 [40.33] vs 49.17 [30.46] min/d). Specifically, there was no significant difference in mathematics scores between children who spent more than 2 hours studying or reading after school and children who spent less than 1 hour (β = −1.58; 95% CI, −4.46 to 1.31). The overall well-being index of children was similar at baseline and after 1 academic year in both the intervention group (mean [SD], 16.9 [5.11] vs 16.8 [4.44] points) and control group (mean [SD], 16.2 [5.87] vs 16.9 [6.00] points). Sensitivity analyses based on the per-protocol principle had results similar to those of the primary analyses (eTable 3 in 