Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39193200›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024

Efficacy of outdoor interventions for myopia in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhengyang Mei, Yuanzhuo Zhang, Wenfeng Jiang, Chifong Lam, Shulai Luo, Chenyi Cai, Shi Luo

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Management of myopia: a mini-review.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Zhengyang MeiSchool of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Yuanzhuo ZhangSchool of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Wenfeng JiangSchool of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Chifong LamKey Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Faculty of Psychology, Ministry of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Shulai LuoSchool of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Chenyi CaiSchool of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Shi LuoSchool of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the overall efficacy of outdoor interventions for myopia in children and adolescents, and to provide evidence for the prevention and control of myopia. Methods: Randomized controlled trials of outdoor interventions for myopia in children and adolescents were identified using electronic databases and manual searches. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias in randomized controlled trials. A mean difference (MD) and a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to combine effect sizes. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each outcome using a stepwise elimination method to assess whether the pooled results were significantly affected by individual studies. Results: The analysis included seven randomized controlled trials involving a total of 9,437 subjects. The meta-analysis showed marked and statistically significant improvements in spherical equivalent refraction (MD = 0.19; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.25; Conclusion: Outdoor interventions effectively contributed to the prevention and control of myopia in children and adolescents, positively impacting spherical equivalent refraction, axial length, and myopia incidence. Outdoor interventions were characterized by low risk and high therapeutic benefits and could serve as alternative or adjuvant approaches to medication for the treatment of myopia. Considering the advantages in terms of safety and efficacy, outdoor interventions may be considered as a preferred intervention for the treatment of myopia in children and adolescents, while susceptibility to diseases associated with sunlight, particularly UV exposure, must be taken into account. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42024538695.

Indexed as

MyopiaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentChildHumansadolescentschildrenmeta-analysismyopiaoutdoor interventions

Identifiers

PMID39193200
PMCPMC11347293

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.