Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33804031›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

The Sankara Nethralaya Tamil Nadu Essilor Myopia (STEM) Study-Defining a Threshold for Non-Cycloplegic Myopia Prevalence in Children.

Aparna Gopalakrishnan, Jameel Rizwana Hussaindeen, Viswanathan Sivaraman, Meenakshi Swaminathan, Yee Ling Wong, James Andrew Armitage, Alex Gentle, Simon Backhouse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Prevalence of myopia among urban and suburban school children in Tamil Nadu, South India: findings from the Sankara Nethralaya Tamil Nadu Essilor Myopia (STEM) Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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.

Aparna GopalakrishnanMyopia Clinic, Sankara Nethralaya, Unit of Medical Research Foundation, Chennai 600 006, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3815-0333
Jameel Rizwana HussaindeenMyopia Clinic, Sankara Nethralaya, Unit of Medical Research Foundation, Chennai 600 006, India.
Viswanathan SivaramanMyopia Clinic, Sankara Nethralaya, Unit of Medical Research Foundation, Chennai 600 006, India.
Meenakshi SwaminathanMyopia Clinic, Sankara Nethralaya, Unit of Medical Research Foundation, Chennai 600 006, India.
Yee Ling WongR&D AMERA, Essilor International Singapore, Singapore 339346, Singapore.
James Andrew ArmitageSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3762-0911
Alex GentleSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0661-4196
Simon BackhouseSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5988-1469

Funding

Essilor International, Singapore nil
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic autorefraction with an open-field auto refractor in a school vision screening set up, and to define a threshold for myopia that agrees with the standard cycloplegic refraction threshold. The study was conducted as part of the Sankara Nethralaya Tamil Nadu Essilor Myopia (STEM) study, which investigated the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors for myopia among children in South India. Children from two schools aged 5 to 15 years, with no ocular abnormalities and whose parents gave informed consent for cycloplegic refraction were included in the study. All the children underwent visual acuity assessment (Pocket Vision Screener, Elite school of Optometry, India), followed by non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic (1% tropicamide) open-field autorefraction (Grand Seiko, WAM-5500). A total of 387 children were included in the study, of whom 201 were boys. The mean (SD) age of the children was 12.2 (±2.1) years. Overall, the mean difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) open-field autorefraction measures was 0.34 D (limits of agreement (LOA), 1.06 D to -0.38 D). For myopes, the mean difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic SE was 0.13 D (LOA, 0.63D to -0.36D). The prevalence of myopia was 12% (95% CI, 8% to 15%) using the threshold of cycloplegic SE ≤ -0.50 D, and was 14% (95% CI, 11% to 17%) with SE ≤ -0.50 D using non-cycloplegic refraction. When myopia was defined as SE of ≤-0.75 D under non-cycloplegic conditions, there was no difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic open-field autorefraction prevalence estimates (12%; 95% CI, 8% to 15%;

Indexed as

cycloplegic refractionmyopianon-cycloplegic refractionopen field auto refractionprevalencerefractive error

Identifiers

PMID33804031
PMCPMC8001787

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.