ReviewJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Acute acquired comitant esotropia in the smartphone era: a narrative review.
Review in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAcute acquired comitant esotropia (AACE) has received increasing attention in the smartphone era, following numerous clinical reports suggesting an association with intensive and prolonged device use. However, it remains unclear whether smartphone use is a direct cause of AACE, a trigger in susceptible individuals, or a surrogate marker for broader modern lifestyle changes that may contribute to its pathogenesis. STUDY
designFocused narrative review.
methodsThis article presents a focused narrative review of the literature on AACE in relation to intensive smartphone or other handheld digital-display use, with an emphasis on clinical evidence, exposure characteristics, potential sources of bias, and biologically plausible mechanisms.
resultsMost of the available evidence comes from retrospective studies and uncontrolled visual hygiene trials, both of which are often limited by selection bias and inaccurate self-reporting of screen time. In addition, publication bias is a major concern; cases mentioning smartphone use may be more likely to be published than otherwise similar cases without reported smartphone exposure.
conclusionsProlonged near-viewing on handheld digital displays is a biologically plausible contributing factor to AACE in some patients, particularly through sustained high vergence demand at short viewing distances. Nevertheless, current data are insufficient to establish a population-level causal relationship. Future studies should incorporate objective exposure metrics, standardized phenotyping, and explicit adjustment for age, refractive error, and objectively assessed near-work load to clarify the strength and nature of this association.
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.