ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
The Sankara Nethralaya Tamil Nadu Essilor Myopia (STEM) Study-Defining a Threshold for Non-Cycloplegic Myopia Prevalence in Children.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Cycloplegic Refraction Using the Eyerobo Vision Screener: Design-A Cross-Sectional Comparative Device Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Article
- Priorities in school eye health in low and middle-income countries a scoping review.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Ocular Biometry Percentile Curves and Their Relation to Myopia Development in Indian Children.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Prevalence of myopia and refractive parameters among children and adolescents in Hi-tech District of Chengdu City.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Analysis of 2-year spherical equivalent progression in emmetropic children with non-cycloplegic refraction: a retrospective chart review.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Clinical evaluation of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in Chinese school-aged children: a cross-sectional study.Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
- 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) · 2022Article
- Design, methodology, and baseline of whole city-million scale children and adolescents myopia survey (CAMS) in Wenzhou, China.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Article
- Development of Refractive Parameters in 3- to 6-Year-Old Children and Its Application in Myopia Prediction and Intervention Guidance.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- Instrument-based, non-cycloplegic versus cycloplegic refraction in pediatric and young adult populations (≤25 years): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.