Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Near work, outdoor activity, and myopia in children in rural China: the Handan offspring myopia study

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 1, 8Email author,
  • 5, 6,
  • 2,
  • 2 and
  • 7
BMC OphthalmologyBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:203

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0598-9

Received: 19 October 2016

Accepted: 7 November 2017

Published: 17 November 2017

Abstract

Background

The near work and outdoor activity are the most important environmental risk factors for myopia. However, data from Chinese rural children are relatively rare and remain controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship of both near work and outdoor activities with refractive error in rural children in China.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 572 (65.1%) of 878 children (6–18 years of age) were included from the Handan Offspring Myopia Study (HOMS). Information from the parents on these children, as well as the parent’s non-cycloplegic refraction, were obtained from the database of the Handan Eye Study conducted in the years 2006–2007. A comprehensive vision examination, including cycloplegic refraction, and a related questionnaire, were assessed on all children.

Results

The overall time spent on near work and outdoor activity in the children was 4.8 ± 1.6 and 2.9 ± 1.4 h per day, respectively. Myopic children spent more time on near work (5.0 ± 1.7 h vs.4.7 ± 1.6 h, p = 0.049), while no significant difference was found in outdoor activity hours (2.8 ± 1.3 h vs. 3.0 ± 1.4 h, p = 0.38), as compared to non-myopic children. In the multiple logistic analysis, in general, no association between near work and myopia was found after adjusting for the children’s age, gender, parental refractive error, parental educational level, and daily outdoor activity hours [odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10, 0.94–1.27]. However, a weak protective effect of the outdoor activity on myopia was found (OR, 95% CI: 0.82, 0.70–0.96), after adjusting for similar confounders.

Conclusions

In general, no association between near work and myopia was found, except for the high near work subgroup with moderate outdoor activity levels. A weak protective effect of outdoor activity on myopia in Chinese rural children was observed.

Keywords

  • near work
  • outdoor activity
  • myopia
  • rural

Background

Myopia is a common vision disorder. The prevalence of myopia in Chinese children living in China [1] was reported to be higher compared to children from Nepal, [2, 3] India, [4, 5] Singapore, [6, 7] Africa, [8] Chile, [9] Australia, [10, 11] the United States, [12] and England [13, 14].

Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on Chinese urban children have found an association between near work/outdoor activity and myopia/myopic progression. [1524] Regarding Chinese rural children, Lu et al. [25] reported no association between either outdoor activity or near work with myopia in the Xichang Pediatric Refractive Error Study (X-PRES) in southern rural China. In contrast, Wu et al. reported that more frequent outdoor activity was associated with a lower prevalence of myopia in Taiwanese rural Chinese primary school children [26]. Interestingly, data from Chinese rural children are relatively rare and remain controversial.

Therefore, we conducted the Handan Offspring Myopia Study (HOMS), which aimed to assess the relationship between near work/outdoor activity and myopia in a rural population in northern China.

Methods

The HOMS, an offspring study of the Handan Eye Study (HES), primarily aimed to investigate the familial associations for myopia among parents and their offspring aged 6 to 18 years in rural northern China, as well as to assess the myopic shift between the two generations and its putative risk factors [27]. Subjects were drawn from the HOMS, which is a part of the offspring of HES [28]. The study design, procedures, and characteristics of HOMS are reported elsewhere [27]. In brief, the study was undertaken in a rural population in Yongnian County, Handan, which is located in southern Hebei province (about 500 km south of Beijing). This geographic area has demographic characteristics similar to other rural regions of China according to the 2000 National Census [28]. Thirteen villages were randomly selected for the HES. Among them, 6 villages with age of parents more than 30 years were selected for the HOMS. From March to June in 2010, 878 of 1238 children eligible for the HOMS (70.9% response rate), aged 6 to 18 years, were examined in the HOMS. There were 462 boys (52.6%) and 416 girls (47.4%), aged 10.4 ± 2.4 and 10.8 ± 2.6 years, respectively. All participants were self-identified Han people. In contrast to the non-participants, children who participated were more likely to be boys, younger, and studying or working near the villages. Information relating to the parents was obtained from the HES.

This study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. Written, informed consent was obtained from at least one parent/guardian. Ethics Committee approval was obtained from the Handan Eye Hospital.

Questionnaire

Each participant completed a standard, myopia-based questionnaire in a face-to-face interview by a trained staff member conducted in the local dialect of the study site. This questionnaire was used in the Sydney Myopia Study, and it was slightly modified and translated into Chinese [18, 20, 29]. The interview covered a broad range of questions regarding various daily activities. These activities were classified into near work, midworking distance, and outdoor activities. Near work activities were defined as those having less than a 50 cm working distance, including drawing pictures, doing homework, reading books, attending additional classes, and using handheld computers. Activities at the midworking distance included watching television, playing video games and using computers. Outdoor activities included leisure time spent outside (e.g., staying in the backyard, walking, riding a bike/scooter, going shopping) and outdoor sports (e.g., running, playing ball, skipping rope). Activity levels were graded as low, moderate, and high using population tertiles of the average daily hours spent on these different activities.

Cycloplegic refraction

Refraction was performed using an autorefractor (model KR8800, Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) before and after cycloplegia in the children. Cycloplegic autorefraction was performed 20 min after instilling 3 drops of cyclopentolate 1% (Cyclogyl, Alcon).Three readings were obtained in each eye, and the average was recorded. A fully dilated pupil was defined as one with a diameter of ≥6 mm and having absence of any pupillary light reflex.

Information relating to the parents was obtained from the HES database including non-cycloplegic autorefracion. All examinations were performed using the same protocols and equipment as the HES [30].

Data analysis and definitions

No imputations were done for the missing data. Only data from the right eye were used, since there was a high correlation in spherical equivalent (SE) between the right and left eye (r pearson = 0.94, p < 0.001). Data were analyzed using commercial software (SAS ver. 9.1.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with the significance level set at less than 0.05.

The SE was calculated as the sphere +1/2 cylinder. Myopia, emmetropia, and hyperopia were defined as SE < −0.5 diopters (D), −0.5D ≤ SE ≤0.5D, and SE > 0.5D, respectively [27, 30]. Average parental refractive error was defined as the combined average of the non-cycloplegic SE of the father and mother. Average daily hours of activities were presented as the mean ± standard deviation. The daily hours of activities were calculated using the formula: [(average hours spend on weekday) × 5 + (average hours spend on weekends) × 2)]/7. Diopter-hours were calculated using a cumulative near work exposure variable at the near and midworking distances using the formula: 3 × (reading for pleasure hours +study hours) + 2 × (computer hours + video games hours) + watching television hours [18, 20]. Activity level was first analyzed continuously as the average daily hours, and then by tertile activity groups. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to assess the association between the SE and daily activity/confounders (fixed effects), as well as considering the children from the same family (family effect) as a random effect. Parental educational level was categorized as the following: illiterate, primary school, junior high school, and senior high school and above. The joint effect of near work and outdoor activities, as well as family effect, using stepwise logistic regression models was performed after adjusting for the different risk factors using GEEs. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented.

Results

A total of 878 (70.9%) of 1238 children aged 6 to 18 years participated in this study. Of these, 598 with completed cycloplegic autorefraction, myopia questionnaire, and parental refractive information were included. Overall, 13 children with either amblyopia or strabismus, 1 child with previous corneal surgery, and 12 children’s parents with either amblyopia or strabismus were excluded. Hence, 572 (65.1%) of 878 children were included in the final analysis. There were 170, 132, 42, and 3 families with one, two, three, and four child(ren). No significant difference was found for the children’s age, prevalence of myopia, and SE between the included and excluded children (p = 0.44, p = 0.65, and p = 0.63, respectively). However, there were more boys in the included children as compared to the excluded children (p = 0.03) (Table 1). Fig. 1 presents the distribution of refractive error in children 6–11 years old and 12–17 years old.
Table 1

Characteristics of the included and excluded children

 

Included (N = 572)

Excluded (N = 306)

P

Age (years)

10.6 ± 2.5

10.5 ± 2.5

0.44

Gender (boys:girls)

316:256

146:160

0.03

Prevalence of myopia (%)a

   

 Boys

17.1

17.2

0.86

 Girls

32.8

27.3

0.12

 Total

24.1

22.6

0.65

Spherical equivalent (D)a

 Boys

0.15 ± 1.18

0.19 ± 1.44

0.81

 Girls

−0.17 ± 1.27

−0.24 ± 1.75

0.65

 Total

0.01 ± 1.23

−0.05 ± 1.63

0.63

aRefractive error data were missing in 24 boys and 17 girls in the excluded group

Figure 1
Fig. 1

Distribution of refractive error in children 6–11 years old and 12–17 years old

Children spent 4.8 ± 1.6 and 2.9 ± 1.4 h per day on near work and outdoor activity, respectively. Regarding the daily near work time in hours, boys and myopic children spent significantly more time on near work than either girls (4.9 ± 1.7 vs. 4.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.042) or non-myopic children (5.0 ± 1.7 vs. 4.7 ± 1.6, p = 0.049), respectively. Although there were significant differences among the paternal educational levels for near work time (p = 0.018), no significant differences were found in the subsequent pair-wise comparisons. No significant differences were found among the other groups, e.g., number of myopic parents, maternal educational levels (Table 2). Regarding the daily outdoor activity time, only a borderline difference was found among the maternal education levels (p = 0.054). No significant differences were found among the other groups for outdoor activity. The daily hours spent on mid-work distance activities were also not associated with the mean SE (r spearman = −0.003, p = 0.94).
Table 2

Near work and outdoor activity time (hours per day) in Handan Offspring Myopia Study children

 

N

Near work

Outdoor

Mean ± SD

p value

Mean ± SD

p value

Gender

 Boys

316

4.9 ± 1.7

0.042a

3.0 ± 1.4

0.12a

 Girls

256

4.6 ± 1.5

 

2.8 ± 1.4

 

Refractive Status

 Myopia

138

5.0 ± 1.7

0.049a

2.9 ± 1.3

0.38a

 No myopia

434

4.7 ± 1.6

 

3.0 ± 1.4

 

Number of myopic parents

 None

197

4.6 ± 1.7

0.32b

2.9 ± 1.3

0.74b

 Either

272

4.9 ± 1.7

 

2.9 ± 1.4

 

 Both

103

4.7 ± 1.4

 

3.0 ± 1.5

 

Maternal education levels

 Illiteracy

87

4.7 ± 1.6

0.17b

2.9 ± 1.2

0.054b

 Primary school

279

4.6 ± 1.7

 

2.8 ± 1.3

 

 Junior high school

189

5.0 ± 1.5

 

3.2 ± 1.6

 

 Senior high school and above

17

4.8 ± 1.6

 

3.1 ± 1.4

 

Paternal education levels

 Illiteracy

21

5.4 ± 2.5

0.018b

3.0 ± 1.1

0.38b

 Primary school

166

4.6 ± 1.6

 

2.8 ± 1.4

 

 Junior high school

343

4.7 ± 1.5

 

3.0 ± 1.5

 

 Senior high school and above

42

5.3 ± 2.1

 

2.8 ± 1.3

 

Total

572

4.8 ± 1.6

 

2.9 ± 1.4

 

at-test

bgeneralized linear models

Table 3 and Table 4 present the mean SE of the children and their associations with daily activity hours, after being divided into tertile groups among the different subgroups. A high myopic refractive error was found in the fathers with the primary school education level subgroup if their children spent more time on near work (p = 0.01). The combined effects of outdoor and near work activities on the odds for myopia are presented in Fig. 2. Children with a high level of outdoor activity and low level of near work were used as the reference group (OR 1.0). Children with moderate outdoor activity and high near work had higher odds for myopia than the reference group (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.69–6.77). However, none of the other subgroups had significant odds for myopia compared to the reference group (Fig. 2).
Table 3

Mean spherical equivalent (diopter)a as a function of near work activity (tertiles of hours per day)

Near work activity (hours per day)b

Low (0~4.0) N = 185

Moderate (4.0~5.1) N = 196

High (>5.1) N = 191

P value

Gender

 Boys

0.33

0.08

0.06

0.17

 Girls

−0.15

−0.19

−0.20

0.96

Refractive Status

 Myopia

−1.73

−1.74

−1.80

0.95

 No myopia

0.63

0.52

0.53

0.25

Number of myopic parents

 None

0.09

−0.04

0.04

0.80

 Either

0.30

0.04

0.01

0.17

 Both

−0.29

−0.32

−0.46

0.89

Maternal education level

 Illiteracy

0.15

0.19

0.12

0.97

 Primary school

−0.01

−0.01

0.00

0.99

 Junior high school

0.39c

−0.13

−0.04

0.06

 Senior high school and above

−1.30

−0.68

−0.85

0.88

Paternal education level

 Illiteracy

0.08

0.27

0.53

0.50

 Primary school

0.38c

−0.11

−0.15

0.01

 Junior high school

−0.06

−0.05

0.04

0.78

 Senior high school and above

0.11

−0.01

−0.61

0.50

Total

0.10

−0.04

−0.06

0.35

aAdjusted for children’s age, gender, average parental refractive error, maternal and paternal education level, and outdoor activity time as fixed effects, and family effect as a random effect

bIncludes drawing, homework, reading, and handheld computer use. Cut-off points were based on population tertiles for average daily hours spent at near

cSignificant (Bonferroni test) compared with the highest tertile of activity as the reference group

Table 4

Mean spherical equivalent (diopter)a as a function of outdoor activity (tertiles of hours per day)

Outdoor activity (hours per day)b

Low (0~2.3) N = 191

Moderate (2.3~3.2) N = 187

High (>3.2) N = 194

P value

Gender

 Boys

0.05

0.10

0.27

0.32

 Girls

−0.13

−0.30

−0.10

0.49

Refractive Status

 Myopia

−1.69

−1.76

−1.84

0.82

 No myopia

0.54

0.53

0.61

0.52

Number of myopic parents

 None

0.03

−0.19

0.25

0.10

 Either

0.08

−0.01

0.26

0.24

 Both

−0.53

−0.09

−0.46

0.32

Maternal education level

 Illiteracy

0.16

−0.10

0.40

0.09

 Primary school

−0.09

−0.05

0.14

0.37

 Junior high school

0.01

−0.07

0.11

0.68

 Senior high school and above

0.11

−0.94

−1.68

0.52

Paternal education level

 Illiteracy

−0.01

0.22

0.54

0.62

 Primary school

0.07

−0.11

0.22

0.30

 Junior high school

−0.06

−0.11

0.10

0.31

 Senior high school and above

−0.27

−0.12

−0.25

0.97

Total

−0.04

−0.09

0.12

0.20

aAdjusted for children’s age, gender, average parental refractive error, maternal and paternal education level, and near work time as fixed effects, and family effect as a random effect

bIncludes outdoor sports, playing out of doors, and other outdoor leisure activities. Cut-off points were based on population tertiles for average daily hours spent outside

Figure 2
Fig. 2

Multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (adjusted for children’s age, gender, average parental refractive error, maternal and paternal education level) for myopia by reported average daily hours spent on near work versus outdoor activities. Activities were divided into tertiles of high, moderate, and low levels of activity. The group with high levels of outdoor activity and low levels of near work is the reference group. The subgroup with high near work levels and moderate outdoor levels was significantly at risk for myopes (asterisk)

Stepwise multiple logistic models were used to analyze the correlation between daily near work/ outdoor activity hours and myopia (Table 5). In a univariate model, children who spent more time on near work were 1.12 (95% CI 1.01–1.25) times more likely to be myopic. However, no significant association between daily near work hours and myopia was found after adjusting for confounders, such as the children’s age, gender, average parental refractive error, parental education level, and daily outdoor activity hours. Outdoor activity had no protective effect for myopia (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.82–1.07) in the univariate model. However, after adjusting for children’s age, gender, average parental refractive error, parental education level, and daily near work hours, outdoor activity showed a weak protective effect for myopia (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.96).
Table 5

Stepwise logistic analysis of daily near work and outdoor activity hours for myopia

 

Near work

Outdoor

 

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

Model 1

1.12

1.01–1.25

0.93

0.82–1.07

Model 2

1.07

0.94–1.21

0.86

0.74–1.00

Model 3

1.05

0.92–1.21

0.86

0.75–1.00

Model 4

1.10

0.94–1.27

0.82

0.70–0.96

Model 1 for near work: adjusted for near work time as a fixed effects, and family effect as a random effect; Model 1 for outdoor: adjusted for outdoor activity time as fixed effect, and family effect as a random effect

Model 2: model 1 + children’s age and gender

Model 3: model 2 + average parental refractive error

Model 4 for near work: model 3 + maternal and paternal education level, and outdoor activity time; Model 4 for outdoor: model 3 + maternal and paternal education level, and near work time

Discussion

Although cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on Chinese urban children have found an association between near work/outdoor activity and myopia/myopic progression, [1520] studies related to the association of near work and outdoor activity with myopia are rare and equivocal among Chinese rural children [24]. In Taiwan, Wu et al. reported that more frequent outdoor activity was associated with a lower prevalence of myopia in rural Chinese primary school children [16, 26]. In contrast, in the Strabismus, Amblyopia and Refractive Error Study (STARS) in Singaporean preschool Chinese children, and in the X-PRES in Chinese rural teenagers, negative results were reported related to both near work and outdoor activity [25, 31]. A meta-analysis that included 7 cross-sectional studies (including STARS and X-PRES) have reported that one additional hour per week spent outdoors would reduce the odds by 2% (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.98, 0.97–0.99) of having myopia in children and adolescents.

The current study performed in Handan reports the effect and possible interaction of near work and outdoor activity on myopia in a wide age range among the Chinese rural population. In the present study, the parental refractive error, one of the important confounding factors for children’s myopia, [31, 32] was obtained directly. We found that myopic children spent more time on near work compared to non-myopic children. However, in general, the daily near work was not associated with the children’s myopia as per the multiple logistic analysis, after adjusting for the children’s age, gender, average parental refractive error, parental education level, and outdoor activity time. This was consistent with previous studies conducted in Caucasians, [23, 33, 34] and East Asians, living in Sydney [23]. This was also consistent with findings in Singaporean preschool Chinese children in STARS, and in X-PRES in Chinese rural teenagers [25, 31]. However, our results were different from those reported in Beijing urban students [16, 17, 20].

A weak protective effect of outdoor activity for myopia was found in the present study. The association between more time outdoors and either a lower prevalence of myopia, or more hyperopic refractive error, was reported in Caucasians [23, 34, 35] as well as Singaporean teenagers [24]. Furthermore, this association was also found in the Chinese [16, 17, 26]. In Taiwan, Wu et al. reported that more frequent outdoor activity was associated with a lower prevalence of myopia (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1–0.9) in rural Chinese school children aged 7–12 years [26]. Guo et al. also reported that less outdoor activity and more time spent indoors studying was associated with myopia progression and elongation of axial length in primary students in grades 1 and grade 4 in Beijing (age range: 5–13 years) [17]. However, the association was not found either in X-PRES in Chinese rural teenagers (mean age: 14.6 years) [25] or in another study involving Beijing urban school children (aged 6–17 years) [20]. It is noteworthy that the protective effect of outdoor activity in our study was not found after the children were divided into two groups by the age cut-off point of 12 (data not shown).

The inconsistent findings of the different studies in both Chinese urban and rural children may be attributed to the different living environments between rural and urban areas. Lin et al. reported the generational myopic shift was estimated to 1D more in Beijing urban area compared to that in Handan rural area [36, 37]. The less urbanized environment and more time outdoors were reported to be associated with lower prevalence of myopia [23, 3537]. These may be attributed to more time spent outdoors in the sun by rural children [23, 38]. Hence, the rural children are exposed to a less myopigenic living environment compared to their urban counterparts.

There were some limitations in the present study. First, the population sample used was obtained from the offspring of the participants in the HES. Consequently, the sample size was relatively small. Second, the activities were self-reported by the children. Although this method was predominant in previously reported studies, the estimation of activity time could be subject to recall bias. However, we randomly reassessed 50 children who completed the questionnaire over a one-month period, and the weighted kappa value was acceptable (0.82) comparing the two questionnaires findings. Third, the information on activities of the children who did not respond (nearly 30%) was unknown.

In summary, in general, the association between near work and myopia was not found in this study. However, a very weak protective effect of outdoor activity on myopia in Chinese rural children was suggested. Further longitudinal studies are warranted.

Conclusion

In summary, in this sample of rural Chinese rural children, no association between near work and myopia was found, except for children with high near work and moderate outdoor activity load. Furthermore, a weak protective effect of outdoor activity on myopia in Chinese rural children was observed.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

GEEs: 

Generalized estimating equations

HES: 

Handan eye study

HOMS: 

Handan offspring myopia study

OR: 

Odds ratio

STARS: 

Strabismus, amblyopia and refractive error study

X-PRES: 

Xichang pediatric refractive error study

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Lei Li, Dr. Peng Zhang and Dr. Qian Jia (Handan Eye Hospital), and Dr. Xiao Dong Yang (Nanjing Tongren Hospital), for their invaluable assistance in data collection.

Funding

The study was supported by the Key Technologies Research Development Program (No.1113108019) from the Bureau of Science and Technology of Handan City, Hebei Province, China, the Beijing Science & Technology Novel Star Program (2009B44), and Zhejiang Health Innovation Talents Program 2016025.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusion of this article is available in the Additional file 1.

Authors’ contributions

YBL and NLW designed the study protocol and conducted the study as a supervisor. ZL, TYG, and BV participated in the study design, conducted statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. KJC and VJ participated in the study design, and revised the manuscript. WH and SJF supervised and monitored the study implementation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Handan Eye Hospital. Written, informed-consent of the parents was obtained.

Consent for publication

Written, informed-consent of the parents was obtained.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China
(2)
Handan Eye Hospital, Handan, China
(3)
College of Optometry, Mid Western University, Glendale, USA
(4)
Department of Biological and Vision Sciences, SUNY College of Optometry, New York, USA
(5)
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA
(6)
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
(7)
Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
(8)
Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK

References

  1. He M, Zeng J, Liu Y, Xu J, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB. Refractive error and visual impairment in urban children in southern china. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(3):793–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sapkota YD, Adhikari BN, Pokharel GP, Poudyal BK, Ellwein LB. The prevalence of visual impairment in school children of upper-middle socioeconomic status in Kathmandu. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15(1):17–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Pokharel GP, Negrel AD, Munoz SR, Ellwein LB. Refractive error study in children: results from Mechi zone. Nepal Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129(4):436–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, Sahare P, Narsaiah S, Munoz SR, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB. Refractive error in children in a rural population in India. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(3):615–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Murthy GV, Gupta SK, Ellwein LB, Munoz SR, Pokharel GP, Sanga L, Bachani D. Refractive error in children in an urban population in New Delhi. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(3):623–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Saw SM, Carkeet A, Chia KS, Stone RA, Tan DT. Component dependent risk factors for ocular parameters in Singapore Chinese children. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(11):2065–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dirani M, Chan YH, Gazzard G, Hornbeak DM, Leo SW, Selvaraj P, Zhou B, Young TL, Mitchell P, Varma R, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in Singaporean Chinese children: the strabismus, amblyopia, and refractive error in young Singaporean children (STARS) study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(3):1348–55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Naidoo KS, Raghunandan A, Mashige KP, Govender P, Holden BA, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB. Refractive error and visual impairment in African children in South Africa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(9):3764–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Maul E, Barroso S, Munoz SR, Sperduto RD, Ellwein LB. Refractive error study in children: results from La Florida. Chile Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129(4):445–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ip JM, Huynh SC, Robaei D, Kifley A, Rose KA, Morgan IG, Wang JJ, Mitchell P. Ethnic differences in refraction and ocular biometry in a population-based sample of 11-15-year-old Australian children. Eye (Lond). 2008;22(5):649–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Ojaimi E, Rose KA, Morgan IG, Smith W, Martin FJ, Kifley A, Robaei D, Mitchell P. Distribution of ocular biometric parameters and refraction in a population-based study of Australian children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(8):2748–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kleinstein RN, Jones LA, Hullett S, Kwon S, Lee RJ, Friedman NE, Manny RE, Mutti DO, Yu JA, Zadnik K. Refractive error and ethnicity in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(8):1141–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Logan NS, Shah P, Rudnicka AR, Gilmartin B, Owen CG. Childhood ethnic differences in ametropia and ocular biometry: the Aston eye study. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(5):550–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rudnicka AR, Owen CG, Nightingale CM, Cook DG, Whincup PH. Ethnic differences in the prevalence of myopia and ocular biometry in 10- and 11-year-old children: the child heart and health study in England (CHASE). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(12):6270–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Saw SM, Hong RZ, Zhang MZ, Fu ZF, Ye M, Tan D, Chew SJ. Near-work activity and myopia in rural and urban schoolchildren in China. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2001;38(3):149–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Guo Y, Liu LJ, Xu L, Lv YY, Tang P, Feng Y, Meng M, Jonas JB. Outdoor activity and myopia among primary students in rural and urban regions of Beijing. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(2):277–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Guo Y, Liu LJ, Xu L, Tang P, Lv YY, Feng Y, Meng M, Jonas JB. Myopic shift and outdoor activity among primary school children: one-year follow-up study in Beijing. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e75260.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin Z, Vasudevan B, Jhanji V, Mao GY, Gao TY, Wang FH, Rong SS, Ciuffreda KJ, Liang YB. Near work, outdoor activity, and their association with refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91(4):376–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Li SM, Li SY, Kang MT, Zhou Y, Liu LR, Li H, Wang YP, Zhan SY, Gopinath B, Mitchell P, et al. Near work related parameters and myopia in Chinese children: the Anyang childhood eye study. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0134514.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin Z, Vasudevan B, Mao GY, Ciuffreda KJ, Jhanji V, Li XX, Zhou HJ, Wang NL, Liang YB. The influence of near work on myopic refractive change in urban students in Beijing: a three-year follow-up report. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(11):2247-55.Google Scholar
  21. Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML, Jones LA, Zadnik K. Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children's refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(12):3633–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones LA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML, Zadnik K. Parental history of myopia, sports and outdoor activities, and future myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(8):3524–32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, Kifley A, Huynh S, Smith W, Mitchell P. Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(8):1279–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dirani M, Tong L, Gazzard G, Zhang X, Chia A, Young TL, Rose KA, Mitchell P, Saw SM. Outdoor activity and myopia in Singapore teenage children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(8):997–1000.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu B, Congdon N, Liu X, Choi K, Lam DS, Zhang M, Zheng M, Zhou Z, Li L, Sharma A, et al. Associations between near work, outdoor activity, and myopia among adolescent students in rural China: the Xichang pediatric refractive error study report no. 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(6):769–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wu PC, Tsai CL, Hu CH, Yang YH. Effects of outdoor activities on myopia among rural school children in Taiwan. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17(5):338–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gao TY, Zhang P, Li L, Lin Z, Jhanji V, Peng Y, Li ZW, Sun LP, Han W, Wang NL, et al. Rationale, design, and demographic characteristics of the handan offspring myopia study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(2):124–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Liang YB, Friedman DS, Wong TY, Wang FH, Duan XR, Yang XH, Zhou Q, Tao Q, Zhan SY, Sun LP, et al. Rationale, design, methodology, and baseline data of a population-based study in rural China: the Handan eye study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009;16(2):115–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ojaimi E, Rose KA, Smith W, Morgan IG, Martin FJ, Mitchell P. Methods for a population-based study of myopia and other eye conditions in school children: the Sydney myopia study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12(1):59–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Liang YB, Wong TY, Sun LP, Tao QS, Wang JJ, Yang XH, Xiong Y, Wang NL, Friedman DS. Refractive errors in a rural Chinese adult population the Handan eye study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(11):2119–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Low W, Dirani M, Gazzard G, Chan YH, Zhou HJ, Selvaraj P, Au Eong KG, Young TL, Mitchell P, Wong TY, et al. Family history, near work, outdoor activity, and myopia in Singapore Chinese preschool children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(8):1012–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones-Jordan LA, Sinnott LT, Manny RE, Cotter SA, Kleinstein RN, Mutti DO, Twelker JD, Zadnik K. Early childhood refractive error and parental history of myopia as predictors of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(1):115–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Ip JM, Saw SM, Rose KA, Morgan IG, Kifley A, Wang JJ, Mitchell P. Role of near work in myopia: findings in a sample of Australian school children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(7):2903–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones-Jordan LA, Mitchell GL, Cotter SA, Kleinstein RN, Manny RE, Mutti DO, Twelker JD, Sims JR, Zadnik K. Visual activity before and after the onset of juvenile myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(3):1841–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Guggenheim JA, Northstone K, McMahon G, Ness AR, Deere K, Mattocks C, Pourcain BS, Williams C. Time outdoors and physical activity as predictors of incident myopia in childhood: a prospective cohort study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(6):2856–65.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Liang YB, Lin Z, Vasudevan B, Jhanji V, Young A, Gao TY, Rong SS, Wang NL, Ciuffreda KJ. Generational difference of refractive error in the baseline study of the Beijing myopia progression study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(6):765–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Lin Z, Gao TY, Vasudevan B, Jhanji V, Ciuffreda KJ, Zhang P, Li L, Mao GY, Wang NL, Liang YB. Generational difference of refractive error and risk factors in the handan offspring myopia study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(9):5711–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McCarthy CS, Megaw P, Devadas M, Morgan IG. Dopaminergic agents affect the ability of brief periods of normal vision to prevent form-deprivation myopia. Exp Eye Res. 2007;84(1):100–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement