ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2026
Refractive Error Changes at Near After Smartphone Use.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To quantify short-timescale refractive recovery after a standardized smartphone near task and timed distance-viewing breaks aligned with the 20-20-20 paradigm, and to determine how much of the accommodative/near work-induced transient myopia (NITM) recovery occurs within the earliest seconds of a break. Methods: In this cross-sectional, 58 students symptomatic for digital eye strain (Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire score ≥ 6) completed a 20-minute continuous reading task on smartphone. Objective refractive error was recorded with an open-field autorefractor at baseline, immediately post-task, and after distance-viewing breaks of 20 seconds, 1 minute, and 2 minutes (≥6 m fixation; no near work permitted). Results: The mean age of participants was 20.85±1.43 years. At baseline near fixation, mean sphere and SE were -2.08±0.45 and-2.38±0.46 D, respectively. Immediately after 20 minutes of reading, a myopic shift was evident (sphere -2.12±0.50 D; SE -2.47±0.46 D). During distance breaks, refractive measures recovered toward baseline in a biphasic pattern: A significant early recovery within 20 seconds (sphere P=0.007; SE P=0.005), followed by smaller improvements from 20 to 60 seconds (sphere P=0.266; SE P=0.034) and from 60 to 120 seconds (sphere P=0.415; SE P=0.270). Cylinder remained stable across conditions (≈ -0.6 D; P=0.136), whereas sphere and SE varied significantly across near and break intervals (both P<0.001). Conclusion: After a 20-minute smartphone near task, the largest component of refractive recovery occurs within the first 20 seconds of distance fixation, with diminishing returns up to 2 minutes. This objective kinetics support the refocusing premise of the 20-20-20 approach and indicate that incorporating more frequent distance-viewing breaks can capture most accommodative/NITM recovery (20-2 min-20).
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.