SynthesisJournal of global health2026
Clinical manifestations, prevalence, and risk factors of asthenopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2026. 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.
- Association between information overload, asthenopia, and depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with lung cancer: A computer-simulated network analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria, Clinical Symptoms, and Risk Factors for Visual Fatigue: A Modified Delphi Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis aims to determine the clinical manifestations, prevalence, and risk factors of asthenopia across diverse populations. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed up to April 2024 for studies published within the last five years on asthenopia, without language or design restrictions. Reference lists were also reviewed. The study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate proportions, prevalence rates, odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Overall, 63 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of asthenopia detected via questionnaires or symptom report was 51% (95% CI = 50%, 52%). Subgroup analyses showed high prevalence among digital device users (90%) and computer workers (77%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, prevalence rose among adults (39%-45%), university students (36%-57%), and school-aged children (45%-64%). The most frequent ocular symptoms were eye tiredness (65%, 95% CI = 46%, 84%), eye strain (47%, 95% CI = 37%, 58%), and burning/irritation (43%, 95% CI = 35%, 51%). Musculoskeletal symptoms, including neck pain (45%, 95% CI = 28%, 62%) and shoulder pain (30%, 95% CI = 12%, 48%) were also prevalent. Neuropsychological symptoms included headache (50%, 95% CI = 41%, 59%) and difficulty concentrating (44%, 95% CI = 32%, 56%). Risk factors included short sleep duration (OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.57), prior eye disease (OR = 2.59; 95% CI = 1.43, 4.69), prolonged screen time (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.09, 1.21), and ambient conditions like air conditioning use (OR = 23.02; 95% CI = 4.94, 107.18). Protective measures included anti-glare filters (OR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.64), regular breaks (OR = 0.21; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.51), and computer use knowledge (OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.13, 0.30). Conclusions: Asthenopia is prevalent across diverse populations, characterised by a wide range of symptoms and influenced by modifiable risk factors. Our findings support a unified definition to improve clinical recognition and offer preliminary evidence to help shape future research on preventive strategies. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42024536841.
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.