The DOI matches its Crossref record.
IMI – Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: We provide a standardized set of terminology, definitions, and thresholds of myopia and its main ocular complications. Methods: Critical review of current terminology and choice of myopia thresholds was done to ensure that the proposed standards are appropriate for clinical research purposes, relevant to the underlying biology of myopia, acceptable to researchers in the field, and useful for developing health policy. Results: We recommend that the many descriptive terms of myopia be consolidated into the following descriptive categories: myopia, secondary myopia, axial myopia, and refractive myopia. To provide a framework for research into myopia prevention, the condition of "pre-myopia" is defined. As a quantitative trait, we recommend that myopia be divided into myopia (i.e., all myopia), low myopia, and high myopia. The current consensus threshold value for myopia is a spherical equivalent refractive error ≤ -0.50 diopters (D), but this carries significant risks of classification bias. The current consensus threshold value for high myopia is a spherical equivalent refractive error ≤ -6.00 D. "Pathologic myopia" is proposed as the categorical term for the adverse, structural complications of myopia. A clinical classification is proposed to encompass the scope of such structural complications. Conclusions: Standardized definitions and consistent choice of thresholds are essential elements of evidence-based medicine. It is hoped that these proposals, or derivations from them, will facilitate rigorous, evidence-based approaches to the study and management 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
Cited by
Sankaridurg, P., Tahhan, N., Kandel, H., Naduvilath, T., Zou, H., Frick, K. D., Marmamula, S., Friedman, D. S., Lamoureux, E., Keeffe, J., et al. (2021) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.62.5.2 · Cited by 435
Self-citationMedia Device Use and Vision Disorders in the Pediatric Age: The State of the Art
Bozzola, E., Irrera, M., Hellmann, R., Crugliano, S., & Fortunato, M. (2024) · Children · doi:10.3390/children11111408 · Cited by 8
Wang, T., Wang, A., Chen, Z., & Lin, X. (2026) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.16.04259
Metadata
- Authors
- Flitcroft, D. I., He, M., Jonas, J. B., Jong, M., Naidoo, K., Ohno-Matsui, K., Rahi, J., Resnikoff, S., Vitale, S., & Yannuzzi, L.
- Venue
- Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2019-02-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- M20
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2920381415
- Cited by
- 1,138
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 49.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: IMI – Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.18-25957
- The paper
- Flitcroft, D. I., He, M., Jonas, J. B., Jong, M., Naidoo, K., Ohno-Matsui, K., Rahi, J., Resnikoff, S., Vitale, S., & Yannuzzi, L. (2019). IMI – Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-25957
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.