ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Optimizing myopia screening referral guidelines for children aged 4 to 18 based on non-cycloplegic indicators.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Screening to Care: Delayed Clinical Follow-up After Childhood Myopia Identification and the Design of a Prospective Intervention Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Trial
- Axial Length to Corneal Curvature Ratio is Insufficient for Detecting Pseudomyopia in Children: A Multi-Cohort Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Article
- Early identification of myopia risk in children through school-based vision screening: a longitudinal cohort study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Myopia Prevalence Among 6-17 Years Students in Rural Areas of Seven Provinces of China.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the stability and predictive ability of uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), non-cycloplegic refraction (NCR), and axial length (AL) as indicators in non-cycloplegic school vision screening for myopia.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study is based on the Shanghai Child and Adolescent Large-scale Eye Study (SCALE). Participants included students who failed school screenings and were referred for follow-up cycloplegic refractions at eye hospitals within three months. We evaluated the differences in UCVA, spherical equivalent (SE), and AL between school screenings and hospital re-evaluations. Furthermore, we assessed the validity of using UCVA in combination with NCR as predictive metrics for myopia referral.
resultsAmong the 8,492 children, 4,357 (51.3%) were boys, with a mean age of 8.26 years (SD = 2.77). AL was identified as a reliable myopia screening indicator across all age groups (ICC = 0.981; 95% CI: 0.978-0.984), outperforming UCVA (ICC = 0.791) and SE (ICC = 0.806). The estimated prevalence of myopia using UCVA and NCR was 76.10%, significantly higher than 58.37% observed with cycloplegic testing. Sensitivity was 96.93% and specificity was 53.13% (Youden index = 0.5). In preschoolers, myopia rates decreased from 50.17% before to 19.82% after cycloplegia, while school-aged children exhibited better consistency. Decision curve analysis showed that the full model incorporating AL did not significantly benefit school-aged children, but may offer greater net benefits for preschoolers.
conclusionsAL should be integrated into screening programs for preschoolers. For school-aged children, the combination of UCVA and NCR suffices for myopia prediction, potentially eliminating the need for cycloplegia.
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.