Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 595

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

Role of Near Work in Myopia: Findings in a Sample of Australian School Children

Ip, Jenny M., Saw, Seang-Mei, Rose, Kathryn A., Morgan, Ian G., Kifley, Annette, Wang, Jie Jin, Mitchell, Paul·2008·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the association of time spent in near work and reading with spherical equivalent refraction (SER) in a population-based sample of 12-year-old Australian schoolchildren. METHODS: Data on the time spent in near-work or outdoor activities per week and estimates for the duration of continuous reading and reading distances, were collected in questionnaires (2353 participants, 75.3% response) in the Sydney Myopia Study between 2004 and 2005; 2339 children underwent a comprehensive eye examination, including cycloplegia. RESULTS: Longer time spent on reading for pleasure and reports of close reading distance (< 30 cm) were associated with a more myopic refraction after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, and school type (P(trend) = 0.02 and P = 0.0003, respectively). Time spent in individual near-work activities, however, correlated poorly with SER (all r < or = 0.2) and was not significant in multivariate analyses for myopia (SER < or = -0.50 D), with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, parental myopia, school type, and outdoor activity. Children of European Caucasian ethnicity reported spending marginally less time in near work than children of East Asian ethnicity (26.0 h/wk vs. 32.5 h/wk, P < 0.0001). East Asian ethnicity, however, was associated with substantially greater odds of having myopia (odds ratio [OR], 11.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0-17.4). Near work such as close reading distance (< 30 cm) and continuous reading (> 30 minutes) independently increased the odds of having myopia in this sample of children. CONCLUSIONS: Although myopia was not significantly associated with time spent in near work after adjustment for other factors, there were significant independent associations with close reading distance and continuous reading. These associations may indicate that the intensity rather than the total duration of near work is an important factor.

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 · 10.1167/iovs.07-0804

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 595

Metadata

Authors
Ip, J. M., Saw, S.-M., Rose, K. A., Morgan, I. G., Kifley, A., Wang, J. J., & Mitchell, P.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2008-07-01
Volume
49
Issue
7
Pages
2903
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W1996094847
Cited by
595
References
1
FWCI
9.85
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

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.