The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare US population prevalence estimates for myopia in 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. METHODS: The 1971-1972 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey provided the earliest nationally representative estimates for US myopia prevalence; myopia was diagnosed by an algorithm using either lensometry, pinhole visual acuity, and presenting visual acuity (for presenting visual acuity > or =20/40) or retinoscopy (for presenting visual acuity < or =20/50). Using a similar method for diagnosing myopia, we examined data from the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to determine whether myopia prevalence had changed during the 30 years between the 2 surveys. RESULTS: Using the 1971-1972 method, the estimated prevalence of myopia in persons aged 12 to 54 years was significantly higher in 1999-2004 than in 1971-1972 (41.6% vs 25.0%, respectively; P < .001). Prevalence estimates were higher in 1999-2004 than in 1971-1972 for black individuals (33.5% vs 13.0%, respectively; P < .001) and white individuals (43.0% vs 26.3%, respectively; P < .001) and for all levels of myopia severity (>-2.0 diopters [D]: 17.5% vs 13.4%, respectively [P < .001]; < or =-2.0 to >-7.9 D: 22.4% vs 11.4%, respectively [P < .001]; < or =-7.9 D: 1.6% vs 0.2%, respectively [P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: When using similar methods for each period, the prevalence of myopia in the United States appears to be substantially higher in 1999-2004 than 30 years earlier. Identifying modifiable risk factors for myopia could lead to the development of cost-effective interventional strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Time outdoors and the prevention of myopia
French, A. N., Ashby, R. S., Morgan, I. G., & Rose, K. A. (2013) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2013.04.018 · Cited by 395
Axial length growth and the risk of developing myopia in European children
Tideman, J. W. L., Polling, J. R., Vingerling, J. R., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Williams, C., Guggenheim, J. A., & Klaver, C. C. W. (2018) · Acta Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1111/aos.13603 · Cited by 348
Education and myopia: assessing the direction of causality by mendelian randomisation
Mountjoy, E., Davies, N. M., Plotnikov, D., Smith, G. D., Rodriguez, S., Williams, C. E., Guggenheim, J. A., & Atan, D. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k2022 · Cited by 299
Circadian rhythms, refractive development, and myopia
Chakraborty, R., Ostrin, L. A., Nickla, D. L., Iuvone, P. M., Pardue, M. T., & Stone, R. A. (2018) · Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · doi:10.1111/opo.12453 · Cited by 235
Pärssinen, O., Kauppinen, M., & Viljanen, A. (2014) · Acta Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1111/aos.12387 · Cited by 153
Metadata
- Authors
- Vitale, S.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2009-12-14
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1632
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2065651845
- Cited by
- 906
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.303
- The paper
- Vitale, S. (2009). Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.303
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.