ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
The impact of different postures on acute intraocular pressure and accommodation responses during reading.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroeconomics and myopia prevention: A framework for public health intervention.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Review
- Myopia and daylight-A combination of factors.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo investigate the effects of different reading postures on intraocular pressure (IOP) and near-work-induced transient myopia (NITM) in children with myopia.
methodsSixty myopic children were instructed to read a book text placed at 33 cm for 30 min with two different reading postures: head bowed and head upright postures. The participants' IOP and NITM were assessed using a rebound tonometer and an open-field autorefractor. The measurement of IOP was conducted prior to reading, during reading sessions (at 5, 10, 20, and 30-min intervals), and after a 5-min recovery period.
resultsFor the head bowed posture, the mean baseline IOP was 16.13 ± 2.47 mmHg. A significant rise in IOP was observed after 5 min of reading (17.17 ± 2.97 mmHg; +1.03 ± 2.29 mmHg; p = 0.014). Subsequent measurements revealed a further increase after 20 min (17.87 ± 2.90 mmHg; +1.73 ± 2.58 mmHg; p < 0.001), which continued to persist even after 30 min of reading (17.57 ± 3.46 mmHg; +1.43 ± 2.66 mmHg; p = 0.002). The IOP at different time points measured in the head upright posture did not show any significant difference in comparison to the baseline measurement (all p = 1.000). Compared to reading with the head upright, reading with the head bowed resulted in a greater increase in IOP at each time point (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the NITM was higher for reading with the head bowed than for reading with head upright at 30 min (-0.24 ± 0.53 D vs. -0.12 ± 0.47 D, p = 0.038).
conclusionReading in a head bowed position resulted in greater increases in IOP and NITM compared to reading in a head upright posture.
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.