ReviewOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Prevalence of Myopia in Europe: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMyopia is a growing public health concern worldwide. Although several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated its prevalence in Europe, findings remain inconsistent due to methodological differences. This umbrella review critically synthesised the available evidence and provided a pooled prevalence estimate based on non-overlapping primary studies.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched systematically up to February 2026 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting myopia prevalence in Europe. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Overlap of primary studies across reviews was mapped, and a secondary random-effects meta-analysis including only unique studies was performed to avoid double counting. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age group and refractive assessment method (cycloplegic vs non-cycloplegic).
resultsFive systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Four recent reviews demonstrated high methodological quality according to the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Considerable overlap of primary studies was identified across reviews, supporting the need for an umbrella review approach. The secondary meta-analysis included 40 unique primary studies comprising 200,127 participants and 33,153 myopia cases. Most included studies defined myopia as a spherical equivalent refraction of ≤-0.50 D, although some studies used alternative thresholds. The pooled prevalence of myopia among European children and adolescents was 12% (95% CI: 9-15%). Age-stratified analyses showed a prevalence of 8% (95% CI: 6-12%) in children <12 years and 23% (95% CI: 13-33%) in individuals ≥12 years of age. Studies using non-cycloplegic refraction reported slightly higher prevalence estimates (14%) than those using cycloplegic refraction (12%); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.45).
conclusionApproximately one in eight European children and adolescents is myopic, and prevalence increases substantially with age. Differences related to refractive assessment methodology should be interpreted cautiously, as no significant differences were observed between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42809203What 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.