ArticleScientific reports2025
Twelve month refractive and axial length changes in the Israeli refractive error, activity, and devices (iREAD) study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence and Risk Factors of Refractive Error in Children in Spain: CISViT Project.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of myopia progression in different educational models.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Childhood myopia in the modern environment: modifiable risk factors and evidence-based prevention.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Israel Refraction, Environment, and Devices (iREAD) is a longitudinal study assessing myopia risk factors in three groups of boys with distinct lifestyles. Ultra-Orthodox (N = 41), Religious (N = 53), and Secular (N = 41) boys (ages 8.6 ± 1.5 years) had eye exams at baseline and 12 months, including cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length. Ocular history, education, near work, and electronic device use were assessed. Time outdoors and physical activity were measured objectively. At 12 months, myopia prevalence increased from 32 to 40% (P = 0.02), with no group differences (P > 0.05). The Ultra-Orthodox group had a more myopic spherical equivalent refraction (SER) at baseline and 12 months than the Religious and Secular groups and more myopic shift at 12 months (P < 0.05 for all). The Ultra-Orthodox group spent less time using electronic devices, more time in school, read at an earlier age, and had higher parental myopia (P < 0.01 for all). Time outdoors and activity did not differ between groups (P > 0.05 for both). In univariate and multivariate analyses, group and parental myopia were associated with greater myopic shift of SER and axial elongation (P < 0.05). In conclusion, risk factors associated with greater myopia progression included being part of the Ultra-Orthodox educational system and number of myopic parents and not screen use.
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.