Myopia Management

Myopia Control Glasses Compared: What the Clinical Evidence Really Shows

Dr Carina Trinh Dr Carina Trinh
· · 11 min read
Myopia Control Glasses Compared: What the Clinical Evidence Really Shows

If your child has been diagnosed with myopia (short-sightedness), you may already know that some glasses can do more than sharpen their vision. Certain lens designs are specifically built to slow down how quickly the myopia progresses. Several manufacturers now make these "myopia control" spectacle lenses, and each one is backed by its own clinical trial.

The tricky part for parents is that every brand publishes its own numbers, from its own trial, in its own country, with its own group of children, over its own length of time. Seeing "65% efficacy" from one study next to "74% efficacy" from another doesn't tell you much unless you know what each of those numbers actually measured.

So I went back to the original published research, not just the marketing summaries, for each of the major myopia control spectacle lens brands currently available, and lined them up at the same 12-month mark wherever the data allowed it. Here's what I found.

How to read this table. Each lens was tested in its own separate study, with different children, countries, ages, and lengths of time. A higher number for one lens doesn't necessarily mean it will work better for your child than a lens with a lower number, since these products haven't been compared directly against each other in the same study. I can help you weigh these results together with your child's specific eyes and lifestyle to choose the best option.

MiYOSMART iQ Hoya · 12-month · age-stratified

At 12 months (Ages 4–6)
Single Vision (SV)MiYOSMART iQ (D.I.M.S. TED)
Cycloplegic SER −0.64 D −0.22 D~65%myopia control efficacy
Axial Length 0.475 mm 0.266 mm~44%reduction in elongation
At 12 months (Ages 7–12)
Single Vision (SV)MiYOSMART iQ (D.I.M.S. TED)
Cycloplegic SER −0.51 D +0.16 D>100%myopia control efficacy
Axial Length 0.310 mm 0.019 mm~94%reduction in elongation

Other Lenses each lined up at the 12-month mark

None of the other studies publish the 4-6 and 7-12 split at 12 months. To make a 1-year trial and a 2-year trial comparable, I've anchored every row below to its own 12-month result. The two lenses with longer follow-up, MiYOSMART Gen 1 and Stellest Gen 1, get their multi-year total in a separate column for context rather than blended into the 12-month figure.

Lens Technology Trial population & duration At 12 months, lens vs. SV Longer-term data Source
SER Axial length
MiYOSMART iQ all agesHoya D.I.M.S. TED Hong Kong, ages 4–12 (n=196)
12-month RCT, split by age below		 +0.046 D vs −0.534 D >100% 0.075 mm vs 0.346 mm 78% — 12-month interim only; longer follow-up not yet published Hoya/PolyU RCT, ARVO 2026
↪ Ages 4–6 −0.22 D vs −0.64 D ~65% 0.266 mm vs 0.475 mm ~44%
↪ Ages 7–12 +0.16 D vs −0.51 D >100% 0.019 mm vs 0.310 mm ~94%
MiYOSMART (Gen 1)Hoya D.I.M.S. (original) Hong Kong, ages 8–13
2-year RCT (79 DIMS / 81 SV completers)		 −0.17 D vs −0.55 D 69% 0.11 mm vs 0.32 mm 66% 24 mo: −0.41 D vs −0.85 D (52%) SER
0.21 mm vs 0.55 mm (62%) AL		 Lam et al., Br J Ophthalmol 2020
Stellest (Gen 1)Essilor H.A.L.T. China, ages 8–13
2-year RCT, same cohort as 1-yr interim		 −0.27 D vs −0.81 D 67% 0.13 mm vs 0.36 mm 64% 24 mo: −0.66 D vs −1.46 D (55%) SER
0.34 mm vs 0.69 mm (51%) AL		 Bao et al., JAMA Ophthalmol 2022
Stellest 2.0Essilor H.A.L.T. MAX Singapore, ages 6–10
1-year contralateral crossover (this trial only runs 12 months)		 — ~0.21 D less progression than Stellest (Gen 1); no absolute value published 0.077 mm vs 0.123 mm 37% better than HALT — no longer-term data published yet Transl Vis Sci Technol, Nov 2025vs Stellest (Gen 1), no single-vision arm in this trial
DOT (Nikon)SightGlass Vision, Nikon Lenswear partnership Diffusion Optics (DOT 0.2) CYPRESS study, US, ages 6–10
1-year RCT		 −0.14 D vs −0.54 D 74% 0.15 mm vs 0.30 mm 50% CATHAY trial (China, 2-yr, different cohort): ~67% SER / 62% AL, cumulative, percentages only SightGlass Vision CYPRESS trial
MyoCareZeiss C.A.R.E. (cylindrical annular refractive elements) China multi-center RCT (NCT05288335)
12-month interim of an ongoing 2-year trial		 −0.37 D vs −0.65 D 43% 0.20 mm vs 0.32 mm 38% — 24-month results not yet published Chen et al., Acta Ophthalmol 2024/25
MyConRodenstock HAPD (horizontal asymmetric peripheral defocus) European children, ages 7–14
5-year independent study		 — no 12-month data published — no 12-month data published "up to 40%" SER over 5 yrs; "up to 56%" AL at 2 yrs, 35% at 4–5 yrs (percentages only, no absolute values) Rodenstock marketing citation of independent HAPD-principle studyno Rodenstock-branded peer-reviewed RCT with raw data found
≥60% relative efficacy 40–59% relative efficacy <40% relative efficacy flagged: different comparator or unverified brand-specific data

Every child's eyes progress differently, and the right lens often comes down to more than the headline percentage. Fit, wear time, comfort and cost all matter too. If you'd like to talk through which of these options might suit your child, I'm happy to help.

Notes & sources
  1. MiYOSMART iQ: the age-stratified figures above are as supplied, presented by Hoya at ARVO 2026. The row in the lower table uses the same trial's all-ages-combined topline (ages 4–12, n=196) so it lines up with the single-number format of the other rows. It is not a separate study.
  2. MiYOSMART Gen 1: Lam CSY, Tang WC, Tse DY, et al. "Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) spectacle lenses slow myopia progression: a 2-year randomised clinical trial." Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104:363-368. The 12-month figures are the trial's own Table 2 (completed-subjects, unadjusted, n=79 DIMS/81 SV). The paper measured every 6 months, so this is a real interim data point, not a computed half of the 2-year number. The 24-month figures are the paper's headline, model-adjusted, all-enrolled result. The paper notes the treatment effect was strongest in the first 6 months and eased afterward, which is exactly why the 12-month efficacy (69%/66%) reads higher than the 24-month efficacy (52%/62%). That's not an inconsistency, it's just how the effect played out over time.
  3. Stellest (Gen 1): Bao J, Yang A, Huang Y, et al. "Spectacle Lenses With Aspherical Lenslets for Myopia Control vs Single-Vision Spectacle Lenses: A Randomized Clinical Trial." JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140(5):472-478. The 12-month figures come from this trial's own published 1-year interim results (same cohort, reported ahead of the 2-year readout); the 24-month figures are the paper's final full intention-to-treat population. A full-time-wear (≥12h/day) subgroup showed a larger 24-month treatment effect (0.99D/67% and 0.41mm/60%), but the paper only reports that subgroup's effect size, not its own raw means for each arm, so it isn't used here.
  4. Stellest 2.0: 12-month contralateral crossover trial (Singapore, n=50). Each child wore Stellest (H.A.L.T.) in one eye and Stellest 2.0 (H.A.L.T. MAX) in the other, so there is no single-vision comparator in this study. Axial length values above are the reported 12-month per-eye means. Transl Vis Sci Technol, Nov 2025.
  5. DOT / Nikon: SightGlass Vision CYPRESS study (US, ages 6–10, 1-year, DOT 0.2 vs single vision). A separate 2-year CATHAY trial (China, ages 6–13) reported 67%/62% cumulative efficacy. Nikon Lenswear is SightGlass Vision's commercial distribution partner, not the lens's developer.
  6. Zeiss MyoCare: Chen X, Wu M, Yu C, et al. "Slowing myopia progression with cylindrical annular refractive elements (CARE) spectacle lenses — Year 1 results from a 2-year prospective, multi-centre trial." Acta Ophthalmol. 2024/2025 (NCT05288335). Values shown are the 12-month observed (unadjusted) means for the single-vision control arm vs the MyoCare (CARE) arm. The MyoCare S arm (a milder variant) reported 0.38D/0.22mm over the same period. A separate 6-month CEME trial in Caucasian children reported different relative efficacy (63%/77%), not shown here since it's a different timepoint and population.
  7. Rodenstock MyCon: despite additional searching of primary literature, no peer-reviewed RCT publishing raw single-vision-vs-MyCon axial length or SER values under the MyCon brand name was found. The efficacy range Rodenstock cites in its own marketing traces to a study of a differently-branded lens using the same horizontal-asymmetric-peripheral-defocus principle, not a trial of the commercial MyCon product itself. Treat this row as unverified.
Dr Carina Trinh
Dr Carina Trinh
Principal Optometrist & Owner

15 years of experience as an optometrist and owner of Carina Eye Care, experienced in prescribing the full range of myopia management options.

Written and medically reviewed by Dr Carina Trinh, BOptom · AHPRA Registered (OPT0001663121) · Optometry Australia Member · CCLSA Member · OSO Member · IOA Member.

WhatsApp Book Online