CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 214Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersHuman Health and Disease

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Near-Work Activity, Night-lights, and Myopia in the Singapore-China Study

Saw, Seang-Mei·2002·Archives of Ophthalmology
DOI 10.1001/archopht.120.5.620
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship among near-work activity, night-lights, and myopia in schoolchildren in Singapore and Xiamen, China. METHODS: The refractive error and ocular dimensions of 957 Chinese schoolchildren aged 7 to 9 years in Singapore and Xiamen, China, were determined using cycloplegic autorefraction and A-scan ultrasound biometry. Information on near-work activity (number of books read per week, reading in hours per day) and night-light use before age 2 years was obtained. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of myopia was 36.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.0%-40.3%) in Singapore and 18.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-23.1%) in Xiamen, China. The crude odds ratio (OR) of higher myopia (at least -3.0 diopters) for children who read more than 2 books per week was 3.50 (95% CI, 2.15-5.70). In a multivariate logistic regression model, the OR of higher myopia for children who read more was 2.81 (95% CI, 1.69-4.69), adjusted for age, night-light use, parental myopia, and country, whereas there was no association between night-light use before age 2 years and higher myopia (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.92-2.58), after controlling for age, books read per week, parental myopia, and country. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ORs of higher myopia for children who read more and children who are exposed to night-lights before age 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Reading (number of books per week) may be associated with higher myopia in Chinese schoolchildren. However, night-light use does not seem to be related to higher myopia.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.120.5.620

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–213 of 213

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Saw, S.-M.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Saw, Seang-Mei
ORCID
Saw, Seang-Mei
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2002-05-01
Volume
120
Issue
5
Pages
620
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archopht.120.5.620
OpenAlex
W2143330017
Cited by
214
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Human Health and Disease
Keywords
myopia, reading, elementary school students, refractive error, parental myopia
MeSH terms
Child, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Human Activities, Lighting, Male, Myopia, Reading, Singapore, Work, Prevalence, Odds Ratio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review