Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersHuman Health and Disease

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Six Year Refractive Change among White Children and Young Adults: Evidence for Significant Increase in Myopia among White UK Children

Open access
McCullough, Sara J., O’Donoghue, Lisa, Saunders, Kathryn J.·2016·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0146332PMC PMC4718680
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine six-year spherical refractive error change among white children and young adults in the UK and evaluate differences in refractive profiles between contemporary Australian children and historical UK data. DESIGN: Population-based prospective study. PARTICIPANTS: The Northern Ireland Childhood Errors of Refraction (NICER) study Phase 1 examined 1068 children in two cohorts aged 6-7 years and 12-13 years. Prospective data for six-year follow-up (Phase 3) are available for 212 12-13 year olds and 226 18-20 year olds in each cohort respectively. METHODS: Cycloplegic refractive error was determined using binocular open-field autorefraction (Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001, cyclopentolate 1%). Participants were defined by spherical equivalent refraction (SER) as myopic SER ≤-0.50D, emmetropic -0.50D<SER<+2.00 or hyperopic SER≥+2.00D. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion and incidence of myopia. RESULTS: The proportion of myopes significantly increased between 6-7 years (1.9%) and 12-13 years (14.6%) (p<0.001) but not between 12-13 and 18-20 years (16.4% to 18.6%, p = 0.51). The estimated annual incidence of myopia was 2.2% and 0.7% for the younger and older cohorts respectively. There were significantly more myopic children in the UK at age 12-13 years in the NICER study (16.4%) than reported in Australia (4.4%) (p<0.001). However by 17 years the proportion of myopia neared equivalence in the two populations (NICER 18.6%, Australia 17.7%, p = 0.75). The proportion of myopic children aged 12-13 years in the present study (2006-2008) was 16.4%, significantly greater than that reported for children aged 10-16 years in the 1960's (7.2%, p = 0.01). The proportion of hyperopes in the younger NICER cohort decreased significantly over the six year period (from 21.7% to 14.2%, p = 0.04). Hyperopes with SER ≥+3.50D in both NICER age cohorts demonstrated persistent hyperopia. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and proportion of myopia are relatively low in this contemporary white UK population in comparison to other worldwide studies. The proportion of myopes in the UK has more than doubled over the last 50 years in children aged between 10-16 years and children are becoming myopic at a younger age. Differences between the proportion of myopes in the UK and in Australia apparent at 12-13 years were eliminated by 17 years of age.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0146332

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Flow diagram describing participant contactability, recruitment and exclusion from Phase 1 to Phase 3.
Fig 1 Flow diagram describing participant contactability, recruitment and exclusion from Phase 1 to Phase 3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Scatterplots of SER at Phase 1 versus SER at Phase 3 for the younger and older cohorts respectively. Data are grouped into refractive classifications as illustrated in the key. The gray boxes indicate participants who became myopic (younger cohort n = 27; older cohort n = 8) or lost their hyperopia (younger cohort n = 20; older cohort n = 4) between Phase 1 and 3. The dashed lines represent the myopia cut-off point of -0.50D or less and the dotted line represents the hyperopia cut-off of +2.00D or greater. The solid black line represents unity- those falling below the line are showing a myopic change in SER.
Fig 2 Scatterplots of SER at Phase 1 versus SER at Phase 3 for the younger and older cohorts respectively. Data are grouped into refractive classifications as illustrated in the key. The gray boxes indicate participants who became myopic (younger cohort n = 27; older cohort n = 8) or lost their hyperopia (younger cohort n = 20; older cohort n = 4) between Phase 1 and 3. The dashed lines represent the myopia cut-off point of -0.50D or less and the dotted line represents the hyperopia cut-off of +2.00D or greater. The solid black line represents unity- those falling below the line are showing a myopic change in SER.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Comparison of refractive error prevalence in the UK (NICER Study) to Australia (SMS/SAVES) at baseline and 5–6 year follow-up. The brackets show the statistical comparisons of the proportions of myopes between the two studies; black indicates statistically significant difference, gray indicates no statistically significant difference (Two sample test of proportion).
Fig 3 Comparison of refractive error prevalence in the UK (NICER Study) to Australia (SMS/SAVES) at baseline and 5–6 year follow-up. The brackets show the statistical comparisons of the proportions of myopes between the two studies; black indicates statistically significant difference, gray indicates no statistically significant difference (Two sample test of proportion).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Comparison of UK refractive error distribution between 1950’s-1960’s (Sorsby study) and 2006–2014 (NICER study) at baseline and follow-up. The brackets indicate the statistical comparisons of the proportions of myopes between the two studies; black indicates statistically significant difference, gray indicates no statistically significant difference (Two sample test of proportion).
Fig 4 Comparison of UK refractive error distribution between 1950’s-1960’s (Sorsby study) and 2006–2014 (NICER study) at baseline and follow-up. The brackets indicate the statistical comparisons of the proportions of myopes between the two studies; black indicates statistically significant difference, gray indicates no statistically significant difference (Two sample test of proportion).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 5 Distribution of spherical equivalent refractive errors in 6–7 year old children within the NICER study Phase 1 (2006–2008) and 6–7 year old children from Sorsby et al.[14]. Data points represent a one dioptre interval (for example, the % of participants represented at point 0 on the x-axis have an SER of less than or equal to 0DS but greater than -1 DS. Data points at the extremes of the x-axis represent participants with SER of greater than or equal to +5DS or less than or equal to -5DS.
Fig 5 Distribution of spherical equivalent refractive errors in 6–7 year old children within the NICER study Phase 1 (2006–2008) and 6–7 year old children from Sorsby et al.[14]. Data points represent a one dioptre interval (for example, the % of participants represented at point 0 on the x-axis have an SER of less than or equal to 0DS but greater than -1 DS. Data points at the extremes of the x-axis represent participants with SER of greater than or equal to +5DS or less than or equal to -5DS.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. SJ McCullough, 2014, A six year prospective profile of refractive error status adults in Northern Ireland-The NICER Study, Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 34, 685

Cited by

See all 147

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McCullough, S. J., O’Donoghue, L., & Saunders, K. J.
Affiliations
University of Ulster (GB)
Corresponding author
McCullough, Sara J.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
e0146332
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0146332
PMC
PMC4718680
OpenAlex
W2285509587
Cited by
147
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5
FWCI
13.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • College of Optometrists
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (P30DC005803)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Human Health and Disease
Keywords
myopia, refractive error changes, myopia incidence, hyperopia, emmetropia, children, young adults, longitudinal cohort, cross-national comparison, Australia, United Kingdom, cycloplegic autorefraction, spherical equivalent refraction, Northern Ireland, 1960s
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Australia, Child, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Myopia, Refractive Errors, Young Adult

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: Six Year Refractive Change among White Children and Young Adults: Evidence for Significant Increase in Myopia among White UK Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0146332
The paper
McCullough, S. J., O’Donoghue, L., & Saunders, K. J. (2016). Six Year Refractive Change among White Children and Young Adults: Evidence for Significant Increase in Myopia among White UK Children. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146332

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.