Aims To investigate whether industry-sponsored randomised control trials (RCT) on myopia control have more favourable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

Methods PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE were searched until 6 October 2023. RCTs of myopia control interventions were included if they reported spherical equivalent (SE) and/or axial length (AL) changes. We pooled the mean differences and 95% CIs in SE and AL changes using a random-effects model. We calculated both the risk ratio (RR) and adjusted OR of having favourable research outcomes in industry-sponsored studies compared with non-industry-sponsored studies.

Results A total of 93 RCTs were included in this review and were categorised into two groups: industry-sponsored studies (n=43) and non-industry-sponsored studies (n=50). Only 10 studies obtained unfavourable outcomes (five studies in each group). No significant differences were observed in risk of bias and the pooled effect estimates between the two groups. The association between industry sponsorship and research outcomes was insignificant (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.13; OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.48 to 13.70). The study conclusions disagreed with the study results in two studies sponsored by industry, while such reporting bias was not detected among studies without industry funding.

Conclusion We did not identify significant associations between industry sponsorship and research outcomes. However, our findings may be related to limited studies with negative results. Reversed conclusions may be a consequence of industry bias.