Abstract
To compare the one-year clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of single vision lenses (SVL), Myopia-control spectacle lenses (MCSL), Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), and Repeated Low-Level Red-Light (RLRL) therapy in children within a real-world setting. This retrospective observational cohort study analyzed data from 206 myopic children aged 8–14 years, who had already received one of four myopia control interventions: SVL (n = 50), MCSL (n = 60), Ortho-K (n = 44), or RLRL (n = 52). The primary outcomes were the change in axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) after one year of intervention. The secondary outcome was the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), calculated as the additional cost per 0.1 mm of AL elongation saved compared to the SVL group. All active interventions significantly outperformed SVL in controlling AL elongation (SVL mean: 0.42 mm/year). RLRL exhibited the greatest efficacy (mean AL change: 0.06 mm; 86.0% relative to SVL), with 31% of participants showing axial shortening. Ortho-K (0.18 mm; 57.5% efficacy) and MCSL (0.23 mm; 45.2% efficacy) also demonstrated substantial benefits. Mean annual direct medical costs were $140.93 (SVL), $429.44 (MCSL), $1,108.08 (Ortho-K), and $806.29 (RLRL). ICER analysis identified MCSL as the most cost-effective active intervention ($151.69 per 0.1 mm AL saved), followed by RLRL ($184.13), while Ortho-K yielded the highest ICER ($400.42). In this one-year study, RLRL therapy was observed to have the highest efficacy. However, the finding of axial shortening warrants validation in long-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to elucidate its mechanism and long-term safety. MCSL spectacle lenses were identified as the most cost-effective option, representing a well-balanced profile of efficacy and economic feasibility. Ortho-K, while a highly effective intervention, was associated with a greater financial burden.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author due to confidentiality restrictions.
References
Dolgin, E. The myopia boom. Nature 519, 276–278 (2015).
Morgan, I. G., Ohno-Matsui, K. & Saw, S. M. Myopia. Lancet 379, 1739–1748 (2012).
Holden, B. A. et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and Temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 123, 1036–1042 (2016).
Liang, J. et al. Global prevalence, trend and projection of myopia in children and adolescents from 1990 to 2050: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 109, 362–371 (2025).
Zheng, F. et al. Prevalence, risk factors and impact of posterior Staphyloma diagnosed from wide-field optical coherence tomography in Singapore adults with high myopia. Acta Ophthalmol. (Copenh). 99, e144–e153 (2021).
Haarman, A. E. G. et al. The complications of myopia: A review and Meta-Analysis. Investig Opthalmology Vis. Sci. 61, 49 (2020).
Du, Y. et al. Complications of high myopia: an update from clinical manifestations to underlying mechanisms. Adv. Ophthalmol. Pract. Res. 4, 156–163 (2024).
Khorrami-Nejad, M., Sarabandi, A., Akbari, M. R. & Askarizadeh, F. The impact of visual impairment on quality of life. Med. Hypothesis Discov Innov. Ophthalmol. J. 5, 96–103 (2016).
Köberlein, J., Beifus, K., Schaffert, C. & Finger, R. P. The economic burden of visual impairment and blindness: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 3, e003471 (2013).
Jonas, J. B. et al. IMI prevention of myopia and its progression. Investig Opthalmology Vis. Sci. 62, 6 (2021).
Smith, E. L., Hung, L. F. & Huang, J. Relative peripheral hyperopic defocus alters central refractive development in infant monkeys. Vis. Res. 49, 2386–2392 (2009).
Lam, C. S. Y. et al. Defocus incorporated multiple segments (DIMS) spectacle lenses slow myopia progression: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 104, 363–368 (2020).
Lam, C. S. Y. et al. Long-term myopia control effect and safety in children wearing DIMS spectacle lenses for 6 years. Sci. Rep. 13, 5475 (2023).
Bao, J. et al. Spectacle lenses with aspherical lenslets for myopia control vs Single-Vision spectacle lenses: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 140, 472 (2022).
Lu, W. et al. Different efficacy in myopia control: comparison between orthokeratology and defocus-incorporated multiple segment lenses. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 47, 102122 (2024).
Xu, W. et al. The peripheral defocus designed spectacle lenses might increase astigmatism in myopic children. Transl Vis. Sci. Technol. 14, 8 (2025).
VanderVeen, D. K. et al. Use of orthokeratology for the prevention of myopic progression in children. Ophthalmology 126, 623–636 (2019).
Sun, Y. et al. Orthokeratology to control myopia progression: A Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE. 10, e0124535 (2015).
Jiang, Y. et al. Effect of repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy for myopia control in children. Ophthalmology 129, 509–519 (2022).
Zhang, H. et al. Efficacy of repeated low-level red-light therapy in the prevention and control of myopia in children. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 47, 104216 (2024).
Tang, J. et al. Efficacy of repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy for slowing the progression of childhood myopia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 252, 153–163 (2023).
Kang, D. et al. Effect of repeated Low-Level red light therapy on axial length in myopic individuals: predictors for a good response. BMC Ophthalmol. 25, 273 (2025).
He, X. et al. Effect of repeated Low-level red light on myopia prevention among children in China with premyopia: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open. 6, e239612 (2023).
Liu, G. et al. Axial shortening effects of repeated Low-level Red-light therapy in children with high myopia: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 270, 203–215 (2025).
Wang, W. et al. Axial shortening in myopic children after repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy: post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. Ophthalmol. Ther. 12, 1223–1237 (2023).
Gao, Y. et al. Low-level red light inhibits human retinal pigment epithelial cell fibrosis via UBE2C in a myopia-simulating hypoxic microenvironment. Eur. J. Med. Res. 30, 530 (2025).
Liu, Y., Zhu, M., Yan, X., Li, M. & Xiang, Y. The effect of repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy on myopia control and choroid. Transl Vis. Sci. Technol. 13, 29 (2024).
Liu, H., Yang, Y., Guo, J., Peng, J. & Zhao, P. Retinal damage after repeated Low-level Red-Light laser exposure. JAMA Ophthalmol. 141, 693–695 (2023).
Zhang, Z. et al. Structural OCT changes following repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy for myopia prevention. JAMA Ophthalmol. 143, 876–877 (2025).
Agyekum, S. et al. Cost-Effectiveness analysis of myopia progression interventions in children. JAMA Netw. Open. 6, e2340986 (2023).
Bennett, H., Britton, A., O’Sullivan, D. & Lado, F. Cost-effectiveness of myopia-control spectacles and contact lenses for children and adolescents in Wales. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc CE. 23, 26 (2025).
Maulvi, F. A., Desai, D. T., Kalaiselvan, P., Shah, D. O. & Willcox, M. D. P. Current and emerging strategies for myopia control: a narrative review of optical, pharmacological, behavioural, and adjunctive therapies. Eye Lond. Engl. 39, 2635–2644 (2025).
Liu, G. et al. Axial length shortening and choroid thickening in myopic adults treated with repeated Low-Level red light. J. Clin. Med. 11, 7498 (2022).
Gioia, M., De Bernardo, M., Cione, F., De Luca, M. & Rosa, N. Corrected axial length and choroidal thickness: A correlation analysis for scientific purposes. J. Pers. Med. 15, 15 (2025).
Xiong, R. et al. Sustained and rebound effect of repeated low-level red‐light therapy on myopia control: A 2‐year post‐trial follow‐up study. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 50, 1013–1024 (2022).
Lee, L. et al. Factors affecting the lifetime cost of myopia and the impact of active myopia treatments in Europe. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 278, 212–221 (2025).
Funding
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 82201195).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Daohuan Kang: Conceptualization, software, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation. Lu Yuan: Validation, formal analysis, data curation, investigation, visualization. Carla Lanca: Visualization, writing—review and editing. Jia Feng: Validation, investigation. Andrzej Grzybowski: Writing—review and editing. Kai Jin: Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, resources, project administration, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kang, D., Yuan, L., Lanca, C. et al. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of four myopia control interventions in children: a single-center retrospective study. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40199-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40199-x
