Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40105152›Full record

ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025

Increased prevalence of myopia in Swedish conscripts between 1975 and 1995 - associations with education and verbal ability.

Tomas Bro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

1 author.

Tomas BroDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Östergötland, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0185-4326

Funding

Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd 2019-00586
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study is to examine the trends in the prevalence of myopia in Swedish young men over a 30-year period and identify potential risk factors for myopia development.

methodThis retrospective, cross-sectional study analysed testing results from three cohorts of Swedish military conscripts: 1975, 1985 and 1995. Myopia was defined as a spherical equivalent (SE) of ≤ -0.5 D and high myopia as SE ≤ -5 D. Myopia prevalence was analysed in combination with physical measures (height, weight and BMI), social measures (theoretical upper secondary school) and cognitive measures (4 different abilities). The results from the cognitive tests used a STANdard NINE scale (stanine or S9), a method of scaling test scores on a nine-point standard scale, with a mean of five and a standard deviation of two.

resultsThe study included a total of 13 075 males aged 17 to 19 years. Adequate data on physical measures and vision were available for 95%-98% of participants. The proportion of individuals with myopia increased significantly from 22% to 29% between 1975 and 1995 (p < 0.001). High myopia increased from 1.9% to 3.3% (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression indicated associations between myopia and year of testing (OR = 1.15), presence of theoretical upper secondary school (OR 1.71, compared to the absence of theoretical upper secondary school), verbal ability (OR 1.08 per stanine) and visuospatial perception (OR 1.05 per stanine).

conclusionOver the 30-year period from 1975 to 1995, the prevalence of myopia among Swedish conscripts increased from 22% to 29%. A higher level of education and higher verbal and visuospatial ability were risk factors for myopia.

Indexed as

Educational StatusMilitary PersonnelMyopiaAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesFollow-Up StudiesHumansMalePrevalenceRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSwedenYoung Adultcognitionconscriptseducationmyopiaprevalence

Identifiers

PMID40105152
PMCPMC12604438

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.