Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33868724›Full record

ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2021

Visual Sequelae of Computer Vision Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study.

Mohammed Iqbal, Omar Said, Ola Ibrahim, Ashraf Soliman

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06106347 (Analysis of Visual and Ocular Outcomes of Computer Vision Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06106347 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Analysis of Visual and Ocular Outcomes of Computer Vision Syndrome

TypeobservationalSponsorSohag UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled60ConditionsComputer Vision SyndromeArmsmfERG device (RETIscan, Roland Instruments, Wiesbaden, Germany)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Digital Eye Strain from Digital Device Usage Among University Students: Prevalence and Associated Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammed IqbalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7954-1277
Omar SaidDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5643-8947
Ola IbrahimDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2993-6040
Ashraf SolimanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0681-8113
Ain Shams University · EGFayoum University · EGSohag University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the visual, ocular, extraocular, and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) outcomes of computer vision syndrome (CVS) among medical students.

methodsThis study was designed as a cross-sectional case-control study that included 733 medical students. All students completed a specially designed and validated CVS questionnaire survey (CVS-F3). Students from the control (No-CVS) and CVS groups underwent comprehensive ophthalmic examinations including the mfERG examinations. Our main outcome measures included uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, resp.) measurements, subjective and cycloplegic refractions, slit-lamp examination, intraocular pressure measurement, pupillary reflexes tests, ocular movements' tests, dry eye disease tests, and fundus and mfERG examinations.

resultsThe CVS-F3 identified that 87.9% of students had complaints that might be related to CVS. We documented a 76% prevalence rate in students undergoing an ophthalmologic exam. The most common ocular and extraocular complaints included visual blur and headache (40.9% and 46.8%, resp.). Statistical logistic and linear regression analyses showed that refractive errors, prolonged screen-hours, close eye-screen distance, improper gaze angle, poor screen-resolution, and screen-glare were risk factors for developing CVS and influencing its severity. In the mfERG subgroup, 42.5% demonstrated reduced amplitudes of mfERG rings and quadrants, indicating reduced foveal responses.

conclusionSurveys cannot yield an accurate CVS prevalence. However, they help to identify subjects at risk who should be comprehensively assessed to confirm or exclude CVS diagnosis. Smartphone misuse primarily caused CVS among users. Our mfERG findings might be a sign of potential CVS visual sequelae; however, future studies are warranted. Clinicians need to understand these sequelae to appropriately identify and treat CVS.

Identifiers

PMID33868724
PMCPMC8035040
OpenAlexW3148010591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.