There are a couple of glaring problems but it's more sound than many such
studies.

I don't see the logic behind using +3.00 lenses beyond 1 meter.

And most western researchers would want cycloplegia with the autorefraction.

But I hope we both live to see the results.

-MT

Interesting.

If the end points will NOT be checked under thorough cycloplegia,
then ... nearly useless ... but ... interesting.

Uncle Otie?

If you (and Don Rehm, and Alex Eulenberg) really gave a damn about
people and vision and results, then a few of you would work together
to discuss methodology with these researchers ... in advance.

Instead, though, here's what you'll do:

Any outcome that doesn't OVERWHELMINGLY indicate that plus lenses are
a panacea for (axial-length) myopia -- will be met with an incredible
trashing of every element of the test.

As always ... you need this "escape hatch."

You value this "escape hatch."

You cling desperately TO this "escape hatch."

It wouldn't surprise me if a few of you are already working up your
talking points.  I can see your decrepit old hands, flailing about,
screaming "Great personal resolve and maturity" and that "Of COURSE it
failed.  You need to use engineers who are pursuing aviation as a
career!!!"

You are a sad old man, Uncle Otie....  I look forward to you proving
that once again, as this test bears fruit.