ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Epidemiology of Refractive Error in Ghana: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo synthesise the population-based prevalence of myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism in Ghana and evaluate the methodological drivers of heterogeneity within the existing epidemiological literature. RECENT
findingsA systematic review and meta-analysis of nine eligible population-based cross-sectional studies (n = 7153 participants, age range 5-70 years) was conducted. Due to substantial inter-study heterogeneity, pooled estimates should be interpreted as weighted averages rather than definitive national prevalences. The pooled prevalence was approximately 3.1% (95% CI: 1.9% to 5.0%) for myopia, 2.2% (95% CI: 1.1% to 4.4%) for hyperopia and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.7% to 3.9%) for astigmatism. Prediction intervals were wide, reflecting extreme between-study variance. Subgroup analyses revealed that myopia prevalence was significantly higher in urban (3.1%) and mixed settings (4.7%) compared with rural areas (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.4% to 1.6%). Furthermore, studies omitting cycloplegia severely underestimated hyperopia prevalence (1.3%) compared to the single cohort utilising cycloplegic refraction (4.6%). Continuous meta-regression indicated a positive correlation between hyperopia and advancing age, while apparent temporal declines in hyperopia and astigmatism may reflect methodological shifts rather than true epidemiological trends. The findings suggest higher myopia prevalence in urban and mixed settings and indicate that cycloplegic use may influence reported hyperopia prevalence estimates. Future epidemiological studies would benefit from standardised cycloplegic protocols and harmonised refractive error definitions to improve comparability of prevalence estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42900316What 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.