4.6 Article

The changing prevalence of myopia in young adults: A 13-year series of population-based prevalence surveys

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 2760-2765

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-0260

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To determine the changing prevalence of myopia during the years 1990 through 2002 among the 16- to 22-year age group and identify possible risk factors. METHODS. A retrospective study, based on 13 repeated prevalence surveys conducted over a 13-year period. The study subjects were all Israeli nationals belonging to the 16- to 22-year age group from the years 1990 to 2002. Refraction was determined by using subjective visual acuity followed by noncycloplegic autorefraction and subjective validation based on the autorefraction results. Mild myopia was defined as a refractive error of - 0.50 to - 3.00 D in at least one eye, moderate myopia as - 3.25 to - 6.00 D, and high myopia as more than - 6.00 D. RESULTS. There were 919,929 subjects ( 382,139 [42%] females and 537,790 [58%] males) included in the study. The overall prevalence of myopia increased from 20.3% in 1990 to 28.3% in 2002. The prevalence of high, moderate, and mild myopia significantly increased in males from 1.7%, 5.7%, and 11.6% in 1990 to 2.05%, 7.2%, and 16.3% in 2002, respectively ( P < 0.001). In females, the prevalence of myopia increased from 1.9%, 6.6%, and 13.5% in 1990 to 2.4%, 9.2%, and 20.7% in 2002, respectively ( P < 0.001). A correlation between myopia and the number of years of education was observed. Non-Israeli origin was found to be a significant risk factor for myopia. CONCLUSIONS. During the 13 years from 1990 to 2002, the prevalence of myopia significantly increased among the Israeli population. Although there was an association with the level of education, gender, ethnicity, and origin, the prevalence of myopia increased on an annual basis, independent of these factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据