Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prevalence of Refractive Error in Singaporean Chinese Children: The Strabismus, Amblyopia, and Refractive Error in Young Singaporean Children (STARS) Study

Open access
Dirani, Mohamed, Chan, Yiong-Huak, Gazzard, Gus, Hornbeak, Dana Marie, Leo, Seo-Wei, Selvaraj, Prabakaran, Zhou, Brendan, Young, Terri L., Mitchell, Paul, Varma, Rohit, Wong, Tien Yin, Saw, Seang-Mei·2010·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of refractive error types in Singaporean Chinese children aged 6 to 72 months. METHODS: The Strabismus, Amblyopia and Refractive Error in Singaporean Children (STARS) is a population-based study in southwest Singapore. Door-to-door recruitment of participants was used, with disproportionate random sampling in 6-month increments. Parental questionnaires were administered. Participant eye examinations included logMAR visual acuity, cycloplegic autorefraction, and ocular biometry. Overall and age-specific prevalences of myopia (spherical equivalence [SE] or= +3.00 D), astigmatism (cylinder >or= +1.50 D), and anisometropia (SE difference between each eye >or=2.00 D) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 3009 children were examined (participation rate, 72.3%). Right eye (OD) cycloplegia data were available for 1375 boys and 1264 girls (mean age, 41 months). Mean OD SE was +0.69 D (SD 1.15). Overall myopia prevalence was 11.0% with no variance between the sexes (P = 0.91). The prevalence of high myopia (at least -6.00 D) was 0.2%. The prevalences of hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia were 1.4%, 8.6%, and 0.6%, respectively. Most astigmatism (>95%) was with-the-rule (cylinder axes between 1 degrees and 15 degrees or 165 degrees and 180 degrees ). Myopia was present in 15.8%, 14.9%, 20.2%, 8.6%, 7.6%, and 6.4% of children aged 6 to 11, 12 to 23, 24 to 35, 36 to 47, 48 to 59, and 60 to 72 months, respectively. Prevalence increased with age for astigmatism (P < 0.001), but not for hyperopia or anisometropia (P = 0.55 and P = 0.37), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalences of myopia and astigmatism in young Singaporean Chinese children are high, but that of hyperopia is low. Age effects were observed for each refractive error category, but differences between the sexes were not significant. Age-related variation in myopia prevalence may be influenced by ocular development, environment, and/or testability.

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.09-3587

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.

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

Metadata

Authors
Dirani, M., Chan, Y.-H., Gazzard, G., Hornbeak, D. M., Leo, S.-W., Selvaraj, P., Zhou, B., Young, T. L., Mitchell, P., Varma, R., Wong, T. Y., & Saw, S.-M.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2010-03-01
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
1348
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W1968953567
Cited by
234
References
0
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.