Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 496

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increasing Prevalence of Myopia in Europe and the Impact of Education

Open access
Williams, Katie M., Bertelsen, Geir, Cumberland, Phillippa, Wolfram, Christian, Verhoeven, Virginie J.M., Anastasopoulos, Eleftherios, Buitendijk, Gabriëlle H.S., Cougnard-Grégoire, Audrey, Creuzot-Garcher, Catherine, Erke, Maja Gran, Hogg, Ruth, Höhn, René, Hysi, Pirro, Khawaja, Anthony P., Korobelnik, Jean-François, Ried, Janina, Vingerling, Johannes R., Bron, Alain, Dartigues, Jean-François, Fletcher, Astrid, Hofman, Albert, Kuijpers, Robert W.A.M., Luben, Robert N., Oxele, Konrad, Topouzis, Fotis, von Hanno, Therese, Mirshahi, Alireza, Foster, Paul J., van Duijn, Cornelia M., Pfeiffer, Norbert, Delcourt, Cécile, Klaver, Caroline C.W., Rahi, Jugnoo, Hammond, Christopher J.·2015·Ophthalmology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate whether myopia is becoming more common across Europe and explore whether increasing education levels, an important environmental risk factor for myopia, might explain any temporal trend. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of population-based, cross-sectional studies from the European Eye Epidemiology (E(3)) Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: The E(3) Consortium is a collaborative network of epidemiological studies of common eye diseases in adults across Europe. Refractive data were available for 61 946 participants from 15 population-based studies performed between 1990 and 2013; participants had a range of median ages from 44 to 78 years. METHODS: Noncycloplegic refraction, year of birth, and highest educational level achieved were obtained for all participants. Myopia was defined as a mean spherical equivalent ≤-0.75 diopters. A random-effects meta-analysis of age-specific myopia prevalence was performed, with sequential analyses stratified by year of birth and highest level of educational attainment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variation in age-specific myopia prevalence for differing years of birth and educational level. RESULTS: There was a significant cohort effect for increasing myopia prevalence across more recent birth decades; age-standardized myopia prevalence increased from 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6-18.1) to 23.5% (95% CI, 23.2-23.7) in those born between 1910 and 1939 compared with 1940 and 1979 (P = 0.03). Education was significantly associated with myopia; for those completing primary, secondary, and higher education, the age-standardized prevalences were 25.4% (CI, 25.0-25.8), 29.1% (CI, 28.8-29.5), and 36.6% (CI, 36.1-37.2), respectively. Although more recent birth cohorts were more educated, this did not fully explain the cohort effect. Compared with the reference risk of participants born in the 1920s with only primary education, higher education or being born in the 1960s doubled the myopia prevalence ratio-2.43 (CI, 1.26-4.17) and 2.62 (CI, 1.31-5.00), respectively-whereas individuals born in the 1960s and completing higher education had approximately 4 times the reference risk: a prevalence ratio of 3.76 (CI, 2.21-6.57). CONCLUSIONS: Myopia is becoming more common in Europe; although education levels have increased and are associated with myopia, higher education seems to be an additive rather than explanatory factor. Increasing levels of myopia carry significant clinical and economic implications, with more people at risk of the sight-threatening complications associated with high myopia.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.018

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 496

Metadata

Authors
Williams, K. M., Bertelsen, G., Cumberland, P., Wolfram, C., Verhoeven, V. J. M., Anastasopoulos, E., Buitendijk, G. H. S., Cougnard-Grégoire, A., Creuzot-Garcher, C., Erke, M. G., Hogg, R., Höhn, R., Hysi, P., Khawaja, A. P., Korobelnik, J.-F., Ried, J., Vingerling, J. R., Bron, A., Dartigues, J.-F., Fletcher, A., Hofman, A., Kuijpers, R. W. A. M., Luben, R. N., Oxele, K., Topouzis, F., von Hanno, T., Mirshahi, A., Foster, P. J., van Duijn, C. M., Pfeiffer, N., Delcourt, C., Klaver, C. C. W., Rahi, J., & Hammond, C. J.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
122
Issue
7
Pages
1489-1497
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110370370
Cited by
496
References
1
FWCI
26.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Increasing Prevalence of Myopia in Europe and the Impact of Education. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.018
The paper
Williams, K. M., Bertelsen, G., Cumberland, P., Wolfram, C., Verhoeven, V. J. M., Anastasopoulos, E., Buitendijk, G. H. S., Cougnard-Grégoire, A., Creuzot-Garcher, C., Erke, M. G., Hogg, R., Höhn, R., Hysi, P., Khawaja, A. P., Korobelnik, J.-F., Ried, J., Vingerling, J. R., Bron, A., Dartigues, J.-F., . . . Hammond, C. J. (2015). Increasing Prevalence of Myopia in Europe and the Impact of Education. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.018

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.