Axial Length Control Using Repeated Low-Level Red Light Combined with Orthokeratology Compared with Orthokeratology Alone in Rapidly Progressing Myopic Children [Corrigendum]

Elham A, Meng X. Clin Ophthalmol. 2026;20:571867. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S571867

Following publication of the article, it has come to the authors attention that there are some errors in the Per-Protocol (PP) analysis. Specifically, the data from the main IPTW analysis (Table 2) was inadvertently duplicated into the PP analysis (Table A5) and its corresponding text during the manuscript formatting process.

The authors have re-verified the original datasets and statistical outputs. The true mean difference for the PP analysis (incorporating 22 children with adherence ≥80% in the RLRL+OK group) at 12 months is –0.324 mm, rather than the mistakenly pasted –0.298 mm.

Page 1, Abstract, Results section, third sentence, the text “Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness: PSM (−0.255 mm; p<0.001) and PP (−0.298 mm; p<0.001)” should read “Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness: PSM (−0.255 mm; p<0.001) and PP (−0.324 mm; p<0.001)”.

Page 7, Sensitivity and Exploratory Analyses section, second sentence, the text “In the PP analysis restricted to RLRL+OK participants with adherence ≥80%, between-group differences were −0.132 mm at 3 months, −0.249 mm at 6 months, and −0.298 mm at 12 months (all p<0.001; Supplementary Table A5)” should read “In the PP analysis restricted to RLRL+OK participants with adherence ≥80%, between-group differences were −0.141 mm at 3 months, −0.266 mm at 6 months, and −0.324 mm at 12 months (p=0.001 at 3 months, and p<0.001 at 6 and 12 months; Supplementary Table A5)”.

The error also impacts the original data for 3, 6, and 12 months timepoints in Supplementary Table A5. The correct Table A5 is as follows.

Table A5 Per-protocol analysis of ΔAL (adherence ≥80%)

The authors apologize for these errors.