ReviewCureus2026
Refractive Errors and Educational Outcomes in Children: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Refractive errors such as hyperopia, myopia, and astigmatism are common in childhood. They may interfere with learning when uncorrected, particularly when near blur and increased accommodative demand reduce reading efficiency and sustained attention. We conducted a systematic review of observational and interventional studies evaluating associations between refractive errors and cognitive or academic outcomes in children and adolescents. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to January 2025, and reference lists of eligible articles were hand-searched. Twenty-five studies were included: 16 cross-sectional or other nonrandomized analytical studies, 4 cohort studies, and 5 randomized studies. The included studies spanned preschool and school-aged populations across diverse geographic settings and assessed outcomes including early literacy, attention, visual-motor integration, reading speed, grades, and standardized academic performance. Across preschool studies, uncorrected hyperopia showed a consistent association with poorer early literacy and attention-related outcomes. In school-based studies, observational evidence generally linked uncorrected refractive error or reduced habitual visual acuity to lower academic attainment. Interventional and randomized evidence suggests that spectacle provision can produce modest improvements in reading efficiency and mathematics performance in some settings, including gains of approximately 0.1 standard deviations in some cluster-randomized trials. However, effects varied across programs and were often sensitive to adherence, timing of outcome assessment, implementation intensity, and outcome measurement. Heterogeneity in exposure definitions, outcome measures, and reporting limited quantitative pooling and supports cautious interpretation. Risk of bias was mainly related to confounding in observational studies, limited masking and adherence in randomized studies, and residual uncertainty across heterogeneous evidence. Overall, the evidence indicates that timely detection and correction of refractive errors may support children's learning, although certainty is limited by heterogeneity, risk of bias, and inconsistent outcome reporting. Future studies should prioritize standardized educational outcomes, rigorous control of confounding, and sustained strategies to optimize spectacle wear.
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.