Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32097480›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2020

Evidence That Emmetropization Buffers Against Both Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors for Myopia.

Alfred Pozarickij, Clair A Enthoven, Neema Ghorbani Mojarrad, Denis Plotnikov, Milly S Tedja, Annechien E G Haarman, J Willem L Tideman, Jan Roelof Polling, Kate Northstone, Cathy Williams and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Corneal biomechanics are not exclusively compromised in high myopia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    Article
  4. Retinal Changes From Hyperopia to Myopia: Not All Diopters Are Created Equal.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Alfred Pozarickij,.
Clair A Enthoven,.
Neema Ghorbani Mojarrad,.
Denis Plotnikov,.
Milly S Tedja,.
Annechien E G Haarman,.
J Willem L Tideman,.
Jan Roelof Polling,.
Kate Northstone,.
Cathy Williams,.
Caroline C W Klaver,.
Jeremy A Guggenheim,.
Cardiff University · GBErasmus MC · NLUniversity of Bristol · GBInstitute of Molecular and Clinical Ophthalmology Basel · CHUniversity of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NL

Funding

Department of Health SRF-2015-08-005Medical Research Council 102215/2/13/2Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MC_PC_19009Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that emmetropization buffers against genetic and environmental risk factors for myopia by investigating whether risk factor effect sizes vary depending on children's position in the refractive error distribution. Methods: Refractive error was assessed in participants from two birth cohorts: Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (noncycloplegic autorefraction) and Generation R (cycloplegic autorefraction). A genetic risk score for myopia was calculated from genotypes at 146 loci. Time spent reading, time outdoors, and parental myopia were ascertained from parent-completed questionnaires. Risk factors were coded as binary variables (0 = low, 1 = high risk). Associations between refractive error and each risk factor were estimated using either ordinary least squares (OLS) regression or quantile regression. Results: Quantile regression: effects associated with all risk factors (genetic risk, parental myopia, high time spent reading, low time outdoors) were larger for children in the extremes of the refractive error distribution than for emmetropes and low ametropes in the center of the distribution. For example, the effect associated with having a myopic parent for children in quantile 0.05 vs. 0.50 was as follows: ALSPAC: age 15, -1.19 D (95% CI -1.75 to -0.63) vs. -0.13 D (-0.19 to -0.06), P = 0.001; Generation R: age 9, -1.31 D (-1.80 to -0.82) vs. -0.19 D (-0.26 to -0.11), P < 0.001. Effect sizes for OLS regression were intermediate to those for quantiles 0.05 and 0.50. Conclusions: Risk factors for myopia were associated with much larger effects in children in the extremes of the refractive error distribution, providing indirect evidence that emmetropization buffers against both genetic and environmental risk factors.

Indexed as

Gene-Environment InteractionGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseAdolescentChildEmmetropiaFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMyopiaRefractive ErrorsRegression AnalysisRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID32097480
PMCPMC7329625
OpenAlexW3007607181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.