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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Chia, A., Chua, W.-H., Cheung, Y.-B., Wong, W.-L., Lingham, A., Fong, A., & Tan, D. (2012) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.031 · Cited by 852
Outdoor Activity during Class Recess Reduces Myopia Onset and Progression in School Children
Wu, P.-C., Tsai, C.-L., Wu, H.-L., Yang, Y.-H., & Kuo, H.-K. (2013) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.009 · Cited by 688
Hashemi, H., Fotouhi, A., Yekta, A., Pakzad, R., Ostadimoghaddam, H., & Khabazkhoob, M. (2018) · Journal of Current Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.joco.2017.08.009 · Cited by 585
Wu, P.-C., Huang, H.-M., Yu, H.-J., Fang, P.-C., & Chen, C.-T. (2016) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/apo.0000000000000236 · Cited by 357
Liang, J., Pu, Y., Chen, J., Liu, M., Ouyang, B., Jin, Z., Ge, W., Wu, Z., Yang, X., Qin, C., et al. (2025) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo-2024-325427 · Cited by 303
From reading books to increased smart device screen time
Dirani, M., Crowston, J. G., & Wong, T. Y. (2019) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313295 · Cited by 63
Self-citation
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.