Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29875876›Full record

ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2018

Prevalence Refractive Errors among Medical Students of Qassim University, Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study.

Sultan H Al-Rashidi, Adel A Albahouth, Waleed A Althwini, Abdullah A Alsohibani, Abdulmejeed A Alnughaymishi, Abdulamlaik A Alsaeed, Fahad H Al-Rashidi, Salem Almatrafi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Validation of the Arabic version of the quality of life impact of refractive correction questionnaire.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Myopia prevalence and risk factors among medical trainees in Lebanon.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
  16. The prevalence of refractive errors among Saudi adults in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sultan H Al-RashidiDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Adel A AlbahouthDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Waleed A AlthwiniDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah A AlsohibaniDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulmejeed A AlnughaymishiDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulamlaik A AlsaeedDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Fahad H Al-RashidiDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Salem AlmatrafiDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Qassim University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo study the prevalence of various errors of refraction among the medical students studying at the college of medicine, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.

methodsThis is a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted at Qassim University clinics over a period of two months. The study population comprised 162 male and female students from different academic years. The students were selected randomly so that around 35-40 students were taken from each academic class. The selected study population was explained the objectives of the study and a written consent form that stated the purpose, methods, risks, benefits, and the assurance of the confidentiality of the data was obtained from each student. After giving the consent, each subject was examined by auto refractometer. The examination was carried out by an optometrist without using cycloplegia. Both right and left eyes were thoroughly examined by auto refractometer and on the average three readings of the refraction measurements were taken. The readings were recorded on a data sheet of every individual, and the Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

resultsOne hundred and sixty-two (162) students with a mean age of 22.44 years, Std 1.661 and a range of 8 (19-27) were included in the study. Of the total number, 111 (68.51%) were males and remaining 51 (31.48%) were females. Of the total sample, only 1 (0.617%) student had diabetes mellitus, and 6 (3.70%) students gave a history of previous ocular surgery. Myopia was found to be the commonest error of refraction 53.7% with hyperopia next to it.

conclusionMyopia is found to be a common error of refraction in young adults. A regular checkup is essential to timely correct the error and to prevent deterioration of the vision.

Indexed as

Errors of refractionHyperopiaMyopiaYoung adults

Identifiers

PMID29875876
PMCPMC5985887
OpenAlexW2803534304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.