Low concentration atropine eye drops and progression of myopia in children: multicentre placebo controlled, double masked, randomised trial in the UK (CHAMP-UK).

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Low concentration atropine eye drops and progression of myopia in children: multicentre placebo controlled, double masked, randomised trial in the UK (CHAMP-UK).
Item: Low concentration atropine eye drops and progression of myopia in children: multicentre placebo controlled, double masked, randomised trial in the UK (CHAMP-UK).
Rating: 90
Author: Αlpha¹

Azuara-Blanco A, Logan NS, McConnell E, Kearney S, Kirk G, Jones S, McDowell C, Murphy L, O'Hanlon G, McFarland M, Painter S, Muthusamy B, Nabili S, Preston J, Flitcroft I, Loughman J, Mackey D, Lee S, Dahlmann-Noor A, Congdon N, Hogg RE, Hammond CJ, Saunders K, Allen PM, Strang N, Clarke M

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 5 high issues for “Low concentration atropine eye drops and progression of myopia in children: multicentre placebo controlled, double masked, randomised trial in the UK (CHAMP-UK).”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 10, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
ReportingData & code availability not met−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 12 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced3 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data and code not sharedAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The paper reports a well-designed and well-conducted clinical trial with strong methodological rigor across most dimensions. The primary weakness is the incomplete data availability statement and absence of a code repository, which is a critical reporting gap. Minor copyedit issues (Table 1 typo, white-ethnicity count discrepancy, mixing analysis populations in the Discussion) also warrant correction.

Both independent reviewers were in agreement on seven dimensions; they diverged on data code availability (warn vs. fail), with the synthesis adopting fail based on the incomplete statement and missing code. The statistics verification covered 11 recomputable tests (all consistent) but does not verify all unreported calculations. The citation check found no retracted or non-existent references. No reproducibility assessment was run.

8 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 11 tests: 11 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 11 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 fail

The introduction cites the rising prevalence of myopia, the Cochrane review on atropine, and uncertainties about effectiveness in European populations. The rationale for the trial is logically derived from these gaps. The discussion explicitly addresses limitations of previous studies, such as small sample sizes and lack of objective adherence measures.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The premise is well established: rising myopia prevalence, the proven but side-effect-limited efficacy of high-dose atropine, and the uncertainty about low-concentration atropine in European-derived populations are all documented, and the rationale flows directly into the trial objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction]

“A recent Cochrane review found that high concentration atropine (≥0.5%) may be the most effective treatment option, but the side effects (photophobia, blurred vision at near reading distance, and allergic reactions) render it unsuitable for routine clinical interventions”