The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia
Abstract
Citation information: Pan C‐W, Ramamurthy D & Saw S‐M. Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012, 32, 3‐16. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‐1313.2011.00884.x Background: Myopia, the most common type of refractive error, is a complex trait including both genetic and environmental factors. Numerous studies have tried to elucidate the aetiology of myopia. However, the exact aetiology of myopia is still unclear. Purpose: To summarize the worldwide patterns and trends for the prevalence of myopia and to evaluate the risk factors for myopia in population‐based studies. Recent findings: The prevalences of myopia vary across populations of different regions and ethnicities. In population‐based studies on children, the prevalence of myopia has been reported to be higher in urban areas and Chinese ethnicity. The regional and racial difference is not so obvious in adult populations aged over 40 years. More time spent on near work, less time outdoors, higher educational level and parental history of myopia have been reported to increase the risk of myopia. Conclusions: Environmental factors play a crucial role in myopia development. The effect of gene‐environment interaction on the aetiology of myopia is still controversial with inconsistent findings in different studies. A relatively hyperopic periphery can stimulate compensating eye growth in the centre. Longitudinal cohort studies or randomized clinical trials of community‐based health behaviour interventions should be conducted to further clarify the aetiology of 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.
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
Cites
Population-Based Studies in Ophthalmology
Wong, T. Y., & Hyman, L. (2008) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.07.048 · Cited by 74
Cited by
Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective
Li, J.-P. O., Liu, H., Ting, D. S. J., Jeon, S., Chan, R. V. P., Kim, J. E., Sim, D. A., Thomas, P. B. M., Lin, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2021) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100900 · Cited by 626
A Review of Epidemiologic Studies on Greenness and Health: Updated Literature Through 2017
Fong, K. C., Hart, J. E., & James, P. (2018) · Current Environmental Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s40572-018-0179-y · Cited by 542
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
Accuracy and Utility of Self-report of Refractive Error
Cumberland, P. M., Chianca, A., Rahi, J. S., & for the UK Biobank Eye and Vision Consortium (2016) · JAMA Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1275 · Cited by 34
Phenotypic and genotypic correlation between myopia and intelligence
Williams, K. M., Hysi, P. G., Yonova-Doing, E., Mahroo, O. A., Snieder, H., & Hammond, C. J. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep45977 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Pan, C., Ramamurthy, D., & Saw, S.
- Venue
- Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
- Published
- 2011-12-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-16
- ISSN
- 0275-5408 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-1313
- OpenAlex
- W1579540011
- Cited by
- 899
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00884.x
- The paper
- Pan, C., Ramamurthy, D., & Saw, S. (2012). Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00884.x
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.
