Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41062253›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2026

Time outdoors prevents myopia in hyperopic children, but protection is weaker in premyopic children: a post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomised trial.

Jun Chen, Ziyi Qi, Ian Morgan, Kathryn Rose, Zhuoting Zhu, Xiaohu Ding, Jingjing Wang, Bo Zhang, Linlin Du, Jinliuxing Yang and 6 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Management of myopia: a mini-review.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026
    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

16 authors.

Jun ChenShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Ziyi QiShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3611-8778
Ian MorganResearch School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4548-3574
Kathryn RoseDiscipline of Orthoptics, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2851-4145
Zhuoting ZhuCentre for Eye Research Australia Ltd, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9897-1192
Xiaohu DingState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China, Guangzhou, China.
Jingjing WangShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2279-9514
Bo ZhangShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Linlin DuShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Jinliuxing YangShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4031-7040
Jianfeng ZhuShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4453-611X
Wei GaoShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Haidong ZouShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Mingguang HeThe Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong.
Xun XuNational Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4246-4343
Xiangui HeShanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China xianhezi@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8938-1879

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo investigate the effect of time outdoors on myopic shift among premyopic children.

methodsPost-hoc analysis was nested in a cluster-randomised trial of the Shanghai Time Outside to Reduce Myopia (STORM) study. 6- to 9-year-old participants without myopia from the STORM study, who wore wristwatches to monitor time outdoors from 2017 to 2018, were included. Participants were all examined with cycloplegic refraction. Daily time outdoors was objectively monitored with the wearable smartwatch. Premyopia was defined as a cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) from -0.50 to +0.75 (inclusive) dioptres (D). Myopic shift was SE change from baseline to 1 year follow-up.

resultsAmong 3194 participants (1369 premyopic; mean age 8.2±0.6 years; 49.5% boys), there were no statistical differences between premyopic and hyperopic children in time outdoors (p=0.303). Hyperopes showed reduced myopic shift with increasing outdoor time (plateau at about 120 min/day). However, premyopes exhibited a J-shaped relationship between time outdoors and myopic shift. In comparison to the subgroup with daily time outdoors <60 min, the difference in SE change in the other subgroups was not statistically significant (61-90 min/d: -0.03 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.05); 91-120 min/d: -0.03 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.05)). The reduced myopic shift was only observed with time outdoors >120 min/d, although it was still not statistically significant (>120 min/d: 0.04 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.14)).

conclusionsAmong premyopic children, increased time outdoors has a limited protective effect on myopic shift, suggesting longer duration of time outdoors or additional interventions to prevent or delay myopia onset in this population.

Indexed as

HyperopiaMyopiaRefraction, OcularChildChinaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLeisure ActivitiesMaleTime FactorsChild health (paediatrics)Clinical TrialEpidemiologyVision

Identifiers

PMID41062253
PMCPMC13018815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.