Compares visual functions of DIMS TED, DIMS, and single vision lenses in myopic children, suggesting similar outcomes.
Purpose: To compare short-term visual functions changes in myopic children who had worn the defocus incorporated multiple segment (DIMS), DIMS with triple enhanced design (DIMS TED), and single-vision (SV) spectacle lenses. Methods: Thirty-eight Chinese children (six to 13 years) with spherical equivalent refractive error -1.00 D to -5.00 D were recruited. Participants wore DIMS, DIMS TED and SV spectacle lenses in random order. High- and low-contrast distance and near visual acuity (VA), mid-peripheral near VA, binocular functions, accommodation and visual symptoms were assessed before and after 1-week of lens wear, while mid-peripheral distance VA was assessed with and without glare in a second visit. Results: Most visual functions showed no differences before and after lens wear. Central high- and low-contrast distance VA and central high-contrast near VA under room and dim lighting were unaffected by DIMS and DIMS TED spectacle lenses compared to SV lenses (all P > 0.05). Central low-contrast near VA was reduced by 0.06 ± 0.10 logMAR in DIMS TED lenses compared to DIMS lenses under room lighting (P < 0.01), and by 0.06 ± 0.11 logMAR compared with SV spectacle lenses under dim lighting (P < 0.01). Mid-peripheral distance VA and near VA were reduced by approximately 0.10 logMAR in DIMS TED and DIMS compared to SV lenses (P < 0.01), respectively. However, these reductions are unlikely to represent a clinically meaningful impairment in visual function. Most children adapted and accepted the DIMS TED spectacle lenses well. Conclusions: DIMS TED spectacle lenses demonstrated visual performance comparable to DIMS and SV spectacle lenses. Translational Relevance: The enhanced design of the DIMS TED spectacle lenses maintains visual performance comparable to DIMS and single vision spectacle lenses, and may potentially increase myopia control efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: