ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Combining visual acuity with refraction reduces overestimation of myopia prevalence in school screenings: an age-stratified analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: School myopia screening commonly employs non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER ≤ -0. 50 D) for its practicality. However, this SER-only approach likely overestimates the prevalence of visually significant myopia, as it cannot distinguish true myopia from accommodative pseudomyopia, especially in younger children. We quantified the disparity between this SER-only criterion and a combined criterion integrating uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), the SER + UCVA criterion, and examined its variation across age groups. Methods: This serial cross-sectional study (2018-2021) included 20,750 students aged 5-18 years from Southern China. Myopia was defined using two criteria based on non-cycloplegic measurements in at least one eye: (1) SER-only: SER ≤ -0.50 D; and (2) SER + UCVA: SER ≤ -0.50 D plus age-impaired UCVA (>0.20 logMAR at age 5; >0.00 logMAR at ages ≥6) in the same eye. Age-stratified prevalence estimates were compared. Results: The SER + UCVA criterion yielded consistently lower prevalence estimates than the SER-only criterion (e.g., 48.89% vs. 59.48% in 2021), corresponding to a 15-21% annual relative overestimation. Crucially, this overestimation demonstrated a strong age gradient. It was most severe in young children, with the SER-only myopia prevalence nearly double the SER + UCVA myopia prevalence at ages 5-6 years (relative difference >50%), and progressively narrowed to approximately 10-15% in adolescents (14-18 years). Notably, a significant acceleration in SER + UCVA myopia prevalence was observed in children aged 7-10 years between 2019 and 2020. Furthermore, from age 10 onwards, SER + UCVA myopia prevalence was significantly higher in females than males (all Conclusion: Sole reliance on non-cycloplegic SER substantially overestimates the burden of visually significant myopia, especially in younger children. Incorporating UCVA provides a more accurate and functionally relevant metric for public health screening. We advocate for adopting age-specific SER + UCVA criteria in school-based screenings to optimize referral efficiency, with the greatest benefit expected for younger populations where specificity gains are maximal.
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.