Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29875094›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2018

Education and myopia: assessing the direction of causality by mendelian randomisation.

Edward Mountjoy, Neil M Davies, Denis Plotnikov, George Davey Smith, Santiago Rodriguez, Cathy E Williams, Jeremy A Guggenheim, Denize Atan

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT04666870 (Shanghai Guanghua Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital, Guanghua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China), which is not on this map. Cited by 177 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
177citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04666870 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Shanghai Guanghua Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital, Guanghua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China

TypeobservationalSponsorWang HongxiaRan2019 to 2019Enrolled1,901ConditionsRefractive Error - Myopia AxialArmsmyopia or not myopia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

177 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 294 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Prevalence of Myopia in Europe: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

117 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Edward MountjoyMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Neil M DaviesMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Denis PlotnikovSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Santiago RodriguezMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Cathy E WilliamsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jeremy A GuggenheimSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Denize AtanTranslational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Biomedical Sciences Building, Bristol BS8 1TD, UK Denize.Atan@bristol.ac.uk.
University of Bristol · GBCardiff University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/8Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether more years spent in education is a causal risk factor for myopia, or whether myopia is a causal risk factor for more years in education.

designBidirectional, two sample mendelian randomisation study.

settingPublically available genetic data from two consortiums applied to a large, independent population cohort. Genetic variants used as proxies for myopia and years of education were derived from two large genome wide association studies: 23andMe and Social Science Genetic Association Consortium (SSGAC), respectively.

participants67 798 men and women from England, Scotland, and Wales in the UK Biobank cohort with available information for years of completed education and refractive error.

main outcome measuresMendelian randomisation analyses were performed in two directions: the first exposure was the genetic predisposition to myopia, measured with 44 genetic variants strongly associated with myopia in 23andMe, and the outcome was years in education; and the second exposure was the genetic predisposition to higher levels of education, measured with 69 genetic variants from SSGAC, and the outcome was refractive error.

resultsConventional regression analyses of the observational data suggested that every additional year of education was associated with a more myopic refractive error of -0.18 dioptres/y (95% confidence interval -0.19 to -0.17; P<2e-16). Mendelian randomisation analyses suggested the true causal effect was even stronger: -0.27 dioptres/y (-0.37 to -0.17; P=4e-8). By contrast, there was little evidence to suggest myopia affected education (years in education per dioptre of refractive error -0.008 y/dioptre, 95% confidence interval -0.041 to 0.025, P=0.6). Thus, the cumulative effect of more years in education on refractive error means that a university graduate from the United Kingdom with 17 years of education would, on average, be at least -1 dioptre more myopic than someone who left school at age 16 (with 12 years of education). Myopia of this magnitude would be sufficient to necessitate the use of glasses for driving. Sensitivity analyses showed minimal evidence for genetic confounding that could have biased the causal effect estimates.

conclusionsThis study shows that exposure to more years in education contributes to the rising prevalence of myopia. Increasing the length of time spent in education may inadvertently increase the prevalence of myopia and potential future visual disability.

Indexed as

Educational StatusAdultFemaleHumansMaleMendelian Randomization AnalysisMyopiaPrevalenceRefractive ErrorsRisk FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID29875094
PMCPMC5987847
OpenAlexW2805662486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.