ArticleClinical optometry2026
Prevalence of Refractive Errors, Myopic Macular Degeneration, and Associated Risk Factors in a Maltese Population-Based Study.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of refractive error and myopic macular degeneration in a nationally representative sample of older adults from Malta, evaluate associations with established risk factors. Patients and Methods: This population-based cross-sectional study included 1,794 participants aged 50-80 years from Malta, recruited as part of The Malta Eye Study (response rate 44.8%). Demographic, medical, behavioral, and ocular data were collected using structured questionnaires. Standardized ophthalmic examinations were performed, including autorefraction and retinal imaging with optical coherence tomography. Refractive error was classified by spherical equivalent as myopia (< -0.50 D) and hyperopia (> +0.50 D), while astigmatism was defined as ≤ -0.75 D. Myopic macular degeneration was graded using the meta-analysis for pathologic myopia classification. Associations were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among right phakic, surgically untouched eyes, the prevalence of emmetropia, myopia, and hyperopia was 20.0% (95% CI 18.0-22.1%), 25.1% (95% CI 23.0-27.4%), and 54.8% (95% CI 52.3-57.3%), respectively. Vector-derived average astigmatism prevalence in both eyes was 44.3% (95% CI 41.6-46.9%), with against-the-rule astigmatism being the most common pattern. Effective refractive error coverage exceeded 90% for both distance and near vision. The prevalence of any myopic degeneration in either eye was 2.6% (95% CI 1.9-3.4%). Myopia prevalence among individuals aged 50-59 years was lower than that reported in other European populations, and use of long-acting anti-muscarinic agents was associated with myopic degeneration (OR 25.70, 95% CI 1.55-426.04, p=0.023). Conclusion: This study reports refractive error and myopic macular degeneration prevalence broadly comparable to other European settings. Lower myopia prevalence among individuals aged 50-59 years may reflect complex gene-environment-behavior interactions. Further investigation of these interactions, as well as the potential impact of long-acting anti-muscarinic agents on myopic macular degeneration, is warranted, particularly in light of the wide confidence interval.
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.