Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42217133›Full record

ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2026

Myopia Trends in Europe: A Reappraisal of Current Evidence.

Carla Lanca, Ian Morgan, Andrzej Grzybowski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carla LancaDivision of Science, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Ian MorganResearch School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Andrzej GrzybowskiInstitute for Research in Ophthalmology, Foundation for Ophthalmology Development, Poznan, Poland. ae.grzybowski@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3724-2391

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our commentary critically examines whether the widely accepted projection of a global myopia epidemic, most prominently proposed by Holden et al. (2016), adequately reflects the European context. These projections assume that most regions outside Africa and Oceania will follow an East Asian-type trajectory, implying that Western populations with prolonged formal education are on a similar path. By reviewing recent European epidemiological evidence, including meta-analyses, we highlight that myopia prevalence in European young adults remains approximately 20-30%, substantially lower than the 70-90% levels reported in East Asia. We further examine how differences in educational systems, lifestyle patterns, and environmental exposures, particularly time spent outdoors, may contribute to this divergence. Importantly, this commentary evaluates the extent to which methodological factors influence reported prevalence, particularly in pediatric populations where most epidemiological data are generated. Variation in age structure, sampling strategies, and especially the use of non-cycloplegic refraction can inflate prevalence estimates and contribute to the perception of increasing trends. When analyses are restricted to comparable age groups and cycloplegic data, evidence for a substantial temporal increase in Europe becomes less consistent. Through this analysis, we question whether current global projections may overestimate future risk in Europe by extrapolating from fundamentally different populations. Finally, we propose that monitoring strategies combining pragmatic school-based screening with standardized cycloplegic assessment may provide a more accurate and context-specific understanding of trends. Overall, this commentary suggests that a myopia epidemic is not inevitable and that Europe represents a critical test case for understanding how environmental, educational, and cultural factors shape myopia development.

Indexed as

AsiaEuropeMyopiaPrevalenceRefraction

Identifiers

PMID42217133
PMCPMC13315361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.