ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Refractive errors in children in the outpatient department of China-Dominica Friendship Hospital in Dominica-a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding the prevalence of refractive error in school-aged children is crucial to reduce the consequences of uncorrected refractive error. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of refractive error among children outpatients at the Ophthalmology Center, China–Dominica Friendship Hospital.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in the Ophthalmology Center, China–Dominica Friendship Hospital. The study included all children who presented to the facility for eye examinations during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Data on refractive errors, and lifestyle questionnaire were collected. Data were entered in Microsoft Excel 2016 and analyzed using R version 4.3.0. Group differences for categorical variables were evaluated using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact probability test with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
resultsOf 180 eyes examined, 94 eyes (52.22%) had refractive error: 85 eyes (47.22%) had myopia (including 8 eyes [5.56%] with high myopia), and 9 eyes (5.00%) had hyperopia. Refractive error was more common in girls (59 eyes, 62.77%) than in boys (35 eyes, 37.23%), a statistically significant difference (χ² = 5.493, P = 0.019). Hyperopia, emmetropia, and low-to-moderate myopia were predominantly seen in the younger age group (5–11 years), while high myopia was mainly seen in the older group (12–17 years); this distribution was statistically significant (χ² = 10.751, P = 0.030). Regarding lifestyle, a lower proportion of girls (40.00%) took a 10-minute break after 30 min of near work compared with boys (60.00%) (χ² = 5.388, P = 0.02). More girls (64.86%) reported poor reading posture (reading while walking or in a moving vehicle) than boys (35.14%) (χ² = 4.025, P = 0.045). Conversely, a greater proportion of boys (61.40%) had more than 1 h of outdoor activity on weekends compared with girls (38.60%) (χ² = 11.568, P < 0.001).
conclusionThe prevalence of refractive error, especially high myopia among children was higher compared to other studies conducted in similar setting. The hospital currently lacks advanced myopia‑control interventions. Larger, population‑based studies and efforts to introduce proven myopia‑control strategies are warranted.
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.