ArticleScientific reports2025
Use of refractive aids among adults in a general population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Systemic and ocular factors determining the circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness in an unselected adult population.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spectacles and contact lenses are important for conducting a normal life in a large part of the general population. The purpose of this study was to estimate the use of these refractive aids in a normal adult population, and to identify characteristics of persons who should be targeted in order to improve uncorrected refraction. In the FORSYN study, 10,350 citizens representative for the adult Danish population were invited for a non-cycloplegic eye examination. The examination was completed in 3,384 persons, and the data were adjusted to represent the frequencies in the originally invited population on the basis of age, sex and socio-economic factors. The frequencies were projected to estimates of absolute numbers in the total adult Danish population. Refractive aids were used by 72.6%, 95% CI: 71.7-73.5% of the adult population. Distance correction was used by 55.7% (95% CI: 54.8-56.7%), contact lenses alone or alternating with spectacles by 11.2% (95% CI: 10.6-11.8%) and reading glasses by 18.8% (95% CI: 18.0-19.5%). Uncorrected refractive error resulted in a reduction in distance visual acuity of 2.99 ETDRS letters per diopter of hyperopia and of 10.3 ETDRS letters per diopter myopia (p < 0.0001 for both regressions). Uncorrected refractive error reduced distance visual acuity significantly in persons using single vision spectacle lenses and progressive addition spectacle lenses that had been prescribed more than 3 years previously. Refractive aids were used in approximately 72% of the population and should be checked when more than 3 years have passed since the last visit with a dispensing optometrist.
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.