Background: Myopia and especially high myopia are recognised as major public health concerns. Although the prevalence of high myopia in young children is low, 10–20% of high school children in Asia have high myopia, with many still progressing, and one in three patients with high myopia develop visual impairment with age. Most participants in myopia control studies have low and moderate myopia; relatively little is known about myopia control in high myopia. Method: Literature searches were undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify publications in English, investigating (Aim 1) the efficacy of myopia control strategies (environmental, pharmacological and optical) in high myopia (≤−6.00 D) and (Aim 2) the complications of high myopia using keywords. Outcomes included change in spherical equivalent refractive error (SE) and/or axial length (AL) to evaluate progression in high myopia. Results: Aim 1: Twelve studies were identified that reported the efficacy of optical and pharmacological (none on environmental) interventions on AL and SE for high myopia control. A statistically significant reduction in progression of SE and AL in high myopes was reported with 1% and 0.5% atropine. Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segment spectacle lenses had lower efficacy in slowing high myopia progression compared to moderate and low myopia. Ortho‐K lenses were equally effective in reducing myopia progression in low, moderate and high myopia. Aim 2: Myopic patients have an increased risk of myopic macular degeneration, retinal detachment, cataract and glaucoma, with the risk increasing with the level of myopia. Conclusions: High myopia has significant effects on quality of life, risk of pathological complications and vision impairment. Young children, excluding those with some syndromic associations, who are fast progressing moderate and high myopes require early intervention and close monitoring. Further research investigating the efficacy of myopia control strategies in highly myopic patients, both independently and through combination treatments, are necessary.

Purpose: Outdoor light exposure is considered a safe and effective strategy to reduce myopia development and aligns with existing public health initiatives to promote healthier lifestyles in children. However, it is unclear whether this strategy reduces myopia progression in eyes that are already myopic. This study aims to conduct an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) reporting time spent outdoors as a strategy to prevent myopia or slow its progression in children. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL from inception to 1 November 2020 to identify SRs that evaluated the association between outdoor light exposure and myopia development or progression in children. Outcomes included incident myopia, prevalent myopia and change in spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) to evaluate annual rates of myopia progression. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included SRs were assessed using the AMSTAR‐2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. Results: Seven SRs were identified, which included data from 47 primary studies with 63,920 participants. Pooled estimates (risk or odds ratios) consistently demonstrated that time outdoors was associated with a reduction in prevalence and incidence of myopia. In terms of slowing progression in eyes that were already myopic, the reported annual reductions in SER and AL from baseline were small (0.13–0.17 D) and regarded as clinically insignificant. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR‐2 found that all reviews had one or more critical flaws and the ROBIS tool identified a low risk of bias in only two of the included SRs. Conclusion: This overview found that increased exposure to outdoor light reduces myopia development. However, based on annual change in SER and AL, there is insufficient evidence for a clinically significant effect on myopia progression. The poor methodological quality and inconsistent reporting of the included systematic reviews reduce confidence in the estimates of effect.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic agreement of non‐cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children. Method: The study methodology followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for comparative studies exploring refraction performed on children under non‐cycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. There was no restriction on the year of publication; however, only publications in the English language were eligible. Inclusion criteria consisted of children aged ≤12 years, any degree or type of refractive error, either sex and no ocular or binocular co‐morbidities. The QUADAS‐2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Meta‐analysis was conducted to synthesise data from all included studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken for those studies with a risk of bias. Results: Ten studies consisting of 2724 participants were eligible and included in the meta‐analysis. The test for overall effect was not significant when comparing non‐cycloplegic Plusoptix and cycloplegic autorefractors ( Z = 0.34, p = 0.74). The pooled mean difference (MD) was −0.08 D (95% CI −0.54 D, +0.38 D) with a prediction interval of −1.72 D to +1.56 D. At less than 0.25 D, this indicates marginal overestimation of myopia and underestimation of hyperopia under non‐cycloplegic conditions. When comparing non‐cycloplegic autorefraction with a Retinomax and Canon autorefractor to cycloplegic refraction, a significant difference was found ( Z = 9.79, p < 0.001) and ( Z = 4.61, p < 0.001), respectively. Discussion: Non‐cycloplegic Plusoptix is the most useful autorefractor for estimating refractive error in young children with low to moderate levels of hyperopia. Results also suggest that cycloplegic refraction must remain the test of choice when measuring refractive error ≤12 years of age. There were insufficient data to explore possible reasons for heterogeneity. Further research is needed to investigate the agreement between non‐cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in relation to the type and level of refractive error at different ages.

Aim To evaluate and compare the efficacy of combination treatment using 0.025% atropine and Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) spectacle lenses to 0.025% atropine and single vision (SV) spectacle lenses in slowing myopia progression in children with myopia. Methods Randomised controlled trial conducted on children aged 4–16 years with myopia between −1.00D and −6.00D and astigmatism ≤2.00D. Children were randomly allocated into two groups: 0.025% atropine and SV spectacle lenses treatment group (group A), and 0.025% atropine and DIMS spectacle lenses treatment group (group B). Cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Results 102 patients completed the 12-month follow-up: n=49 in group A, mean age 9.50±2.78 years and n=53 in group B, mean age 9.90±2.47 years. At 12 months, the mean AL±SD change was 0.18±0.16 mm in group A and 0.07±0.16 mm in group B (mean difference: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.17; p≤0.001). Mean SER±SD progression at 12 months was −0.19±0.42D and −0.09±0.35D in groups A and B, respectively (p=0.13). 39.6% of children in group B had no axial elongation over 12 months compared with 12.2% of the children in group A (p=0.002). Conclusions Combination treatment with 0.025% atropine and DIMS spectacle lenses is more effective in controlling axial elongation than 0.025% atropine with SV lenses. Although not significant, SER differences between groups were lower in group B. These findings support a potential additive effect of the two treatments.