ArticleBMC public health2025
The current status of primary and secondary school students with myopia in the Shekou district of Shenzhen: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-year surveillance of myopia trends and urban-rural disparities among schoolchildren in a Coastal City of Southern China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Establishing and validating a predictive model for long-term control outcomes following orthokeratology lenses wear: a five-year cohort study.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyopia is a growing global health issue. This study aims to determine the current status and determinants of primary and secondary school students with myopia in the Shekou District, and to propose reforms in myopia prevention.
methodsFour thousand seven hundred and sixty-three students were involved in this retrospective study, and categorized by spherical equivalent into normal, low myopia, moderate myopia, and high myopia. Multinomial logistic regression and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine factors on the severity of myopia and axial length [AL], respectively.
resultsThe multinomial logistic regression model indicated, compared to the normal group, each additional year of age significantly increased the odds for low myopia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.285, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.122-1.472), moderate myopia (OR = 1.271, 95% CI: 1.074-1.502), and high myopia (OR = 1.411, 95% CI: 1.090-1.826). Compared to the Grade 1, the OR for low myopia showed a gradual increase across grades: Grade 3 (OR = 2.065, 95% CI: 1.394-3.058), Grade 4(OR = 2.184, 95% CI: 1.338-3.562), Grade 5(OR = 2.640, 95% CI: 1.438-4.850) and Grade 6 (OR = 2.239, 95% CI: 1.077-4.657); The OR for moderate myopia rose significantly from Grade 2 (OR = 2.239, 95% CI: 1.077-4.657), peaked at Grade 9 (OR = 90.445, 95% CI: 14.325-571.040), and remained elevated at Grade 12 (OR = 72.069, 95% CI: 3.818-1360.260); The OR for high myopia was significantly elevated in Grade 6 (OR = 11.490, 95% CI: 1.082-122.077) and Grade 9 (OR = 26.259, 95% CI: 1.429-482.616). The multiple linear regression model indicated that longer AL was significantly associated with older age (β = 0.109, 95% CI: 0.065-0.141), males(β = 0.533, 95% CI: 0.482-0.583), and higher grade level (the largest effect observed at Grade 9, β = 1.124, 95% CI: 0.792-1.455).
conclusionMost myopic students in Shekou District exhibited low or moderate myopia. Alleviating educational stress and implementing AL monitoring are the essential measures for myopia prevention. A comprehensive myopia prevention necessitates a two-pronged strategy combining educational reforms and medical interventions.
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.