ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2021
Effect of reading with a mobile phone and text on accommodation in young adults.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Distance Ocular Deviation After Smartphone Viewing in Young Adults Without Manifest Strabismus.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Comparison of Accommodative Response After Reading from Electronic Devices versus Hardcopy.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Refractive Error Changes at Near After Smartphone Use.Beyoglu eye journal · 2026Article
- Oculomotor Training Improves Reading and Associated Cognitive Functions in Children with Learning Difficulties: A Pilot Study.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of different postures on acute intraocular pressure and accommodation responses during reading.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Refraction difference value variations in children and adolescents with different refractive errors.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Ultrasound biomicroscopy study of accommodative state in Smartphone abusers.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Effects of Extended Viewing Distance on Accommodative Response and Pupil Size of Myopic Adults by Using a Double-Mirror System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Effects of Customized Progressive Addition Lenses vs. Single Vision Lenses on Myopia Progression in Children with Esophoria: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Simulations to Assess the Performance of Multifactor Risk Scores for Predicting Myopia Prevalence in Children and Adolescents in China.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Reduction in Accommodative Response of Schoolchildren by a Double-Mirror System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effects of reading with mobile phone versus text on accommodation accuracy and near work-induced transient myopia (NITM) and its subsequent decay during near reading in young adults with mild to moderate myopia.
methodsThe refractions of 31 young adults were measured with an open-field autorefractor (WAM-5500, Grand Seiko) for two reading tasks with a mobile phone and text at 33 cm. The mean age of the young adults was 24.35 ± 1.80 years. The baseline refractive aspects were determined clinically with full distance refractive correction in place. The initial NITM and its decay time and accommodative lag were assessed objectively immediately after binocularly viewing a mobile phone or text for 40 min.
resultsThe mean ± standard deviation (SD) initial NITM magnitude was greater for reading with text (0.23 ± 0.26 D) than for reading with mobile phone (0.12 ± 0.17 D), but there was no significant difference between the two reading tasks (p = 0.082). The decay time (median, first quartile, and third quartile) was 60 s (16, 154) and 70 s (32, 180) in the phone task and text task groups, respectively. There was also no significant difference in the decay time between the two reading types in general (p = 0.294). The accommodative lags of text tasks and mobile phones tasks were equivalent (1.27 ± 0.52 D vs 1.31 ± 0.64 D, p = 0.792).
conclusionThere were no significant differences in accommodative lags and the initial NITM and its decay time between reading with a mobile phone and text in young adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.