ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Smartphone Near-Viewing Demands Differ in Corrected Presbyopes: Implication for Presbyopic Correction.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate near viewing modifications during smartphone usage between presbyopes and non-presbyopes.
methodsA cross-sectional study design was employed, involving corrected presbyopes and non-presbyopes who completed a series of standardised reading tasks on a smartphone under habitual viewing conditions. The time taken to complete each reading task was recorded. Viewing distance and craniovertebral angle were measured from images captured at a distance of 2 metres while participants performed the tasks, allowing for objective assessment of posture and working distance.
resultsCorrected presbyopes used significantly larger font sizes to complete the reading tasks compared with non-presbyopes (p < 0.01). They also completed the reading tasks at significantly greater viewing distances (p < 0.001) and required significantly longer completion times (p < 0.001). However, craniovertebral angles did not differ significantly between the two groups during task performance (p > 0.05), suggesting similar neck posture despite differences in visual demand.
conclusionDespite reading with a significantly larger font size, presbyopes required a longer viewing distance and more time to complete all reading tasks, indicating increased visual effort and adaptation during smartphone use. These findings highlight the additional visual demands experienced by corrected presbyopes during near digital tasks. Therefore, prescribers should consider the specific visual tasks an individual engages in when prescribing presbyopic correction rather than relying solely on the conventional 40 cm near working distance, as real-world smartphone usage may require different accommodative and ergonomic considerations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42584526What 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.