Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

The increasing prevalence of myopia and high myopia among high school students in Fenghua city, eastern China: a 15-year population-based survey

  • 1, 2,
  • 3,
  • 1, 4,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2 and
  • 1, 2Email author
BMC Ophthalmology201818:159

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0829-8

  • Received: 24 January 2018
  • Accepted: 20 June 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Myopia is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children and young adults. Multiple epidemiological studies have confirmed a high prevalence of myopia in Asian countries. However, fewer longitudinal studies have been performed to evaluate the secular changes in the prevalence of myopia, especially high myopia in China. In the present study, we investigated trends in the prevalence of myopia among high school students in Fenghua city, eastern China, from 2001 to 2015.

Methods

This was a population-based, retrospective study. Data were collected among 43,858 third-year high school students. Noncycloplegic autorefraction was used to determine refractive error, which was defined as low myopia, moderate myopia, high myopia and very high myopia according to the spherical equivalent from the worse eye of each participant. The prevalence of myopia was calculated and the annual percentage change (APC) was used to quantify the time trends. All analyses were conducted using the SPSS, Stata and Graphpad Prism software.

Results

From 2001 to 2015, the prevalence of overall myopia increased from 79.5% to 87.7% (APC =0.59%), with a significant increase of moderate myopia (38.8% to 45.7%, APC = 0.78%), high myopia (7.9% to 16.6%, APC = 5.48%) and very high myopia (0.08% to 0.92%, APC = 14.59%), while the prevalence of low myopia decreased from 32.7% to 24.4% (APC = − 1.73%). High myopia and very high myopia contributed the major part of the increasing trend of myopia prevalence (contribution rate 27.00% and 69.07%, respectively).

Conclusions

During the 15-year period, there was a remarkable increase in the prevalence of high and very high myopia among high school students, which might become a serious public health problem in China for the next few decades.

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Myopia
  • High myopia
  • Prevalence
  • High school student

Background

Myopia is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children and young adults [1]. Recently, there has been growing evidence that the prevalence of myopia has increased rapidly in many parts of the world, especially in East and South Asia [2, 3]. For example, the prevalence of myopia were 96.5% in 19-year-old males in Seoul in 2010 [4]. In Taiwan, the prevalence of myopia in male military conscripts aged 18 to 24 years was 86.1% in 2010–2011 [5]. In China, the prevalence of myopia was 95.5% in university students in Shanghai [6], 84.6% in school children in Shandong [7]. Dramatic increases were also seen in other parts of the world [8, 9]. It has been estimated that myopia will affect nearly 5 billion people by the year 2050 and become a major public health challenge [10].

Due to its high prevalence in China, people tend to ignore the importance of myopia prevention and control, especially in high and very high myopia. High myopia-associated complications such as retinal detachment, macular lesions, peripapillary deformation and myopia choroidal neovascularization may lead to severe and irreversible visual loss [11]. Related complications of high myopia will become one of the main causes of visual impairment in the next few decades in the world [12, 13]. Jung et al. reported that the prevalence of high myopia was 21.6% in 19-year-old males in Seoul in 2010 [4]. In Singapore, the prevalence of high myopia slightly increased from 13.1% (1996–1997) to 14.7% (2009–2010) in young male subjects [14].

In the present study, we analyzed longitudinal data obtained from high school students in Fenghua city, eastern China from 2001 to 2015, to evaluate secular trends in myopia prevalence, especially in high and very high myopia, to provide guidance for the future management of myopia in China.

Methods

Study population

This retrospective study was conducted from 2001 to 2015, in Fenghua city, a county-level city located in the eastern part of Zhejiang province, China. There were seven high schools in this city. As part of the physical examination that students undertake for the National College Entrance Examination, the refractive status of all the third-year students (grade 12) were routinely collected each year. Fenghua people’s hospital was in charge of the physical examination in this district. All students were registered by name, gender, age, visual activity and refractive status. The database was kept by the hospital and we retrieved the data between 2001 and 2015 for analysis, with the official permission from the hospital. Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical College of Zhejiang University and Fenghua people’s hospital Ethics Review Board. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Eye examination

Eye examination was conducted by two experienced ophthalmologists and two qualified optometrists from the ophthalmology department of Fenghua people’s hospital. All subjects underwent a measurement of uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) at 5 m (Standard Logarithmic Visual Acuity E chart). If UCVA was lower than 5.0, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured with subjective refraction. A slit lamp examination was performed to exclude opacity of optical media.

Refraction error measurement

Refractive error (RE) of each subject was measured by automatic refractometer (AR-600; Nidek Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) without cycloplegia. The spherical equivalent refraction (SER) was calculated by the addition of the spherical refraction and half the cylindrical refraction. The baseline SER from the worse eye of each student was used for analysis, which was divided in to five groups: non-myopia (SER less than − 0.5 D), low myopia (SER between − 0.5 D and − 3.0 D), moderate myopia (SER between − 3.0 D and − 6.0 D), high myopia (SER greater than − 6.0 D), and very high myopia (SER greater than − 10.0 D).

Meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate myopia prevalence among young adults. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and web of science covering publications up to December 2, 2017 by two independent authors, using the following key words (“myopia” OR “refractive error” OR “vision disorder”) AND (“prevalence” OR “epidemiology” OR “incidence”) AND (“young adults” OR “students”). Articles were selected based on title, abstract and full texts. The major inclusion criteria for this study were mentioning visual disorders and myopia prevalence among 16 to 39 years old young adults, and exclusion criteria were lack of reference to the prevalence of visual disorders, unrelated studies, and low quality of articles. The methodological quality evaluation of eligible studies was based on the following factors: specific diagnostic criteria, clear refraction method and matched age group. Two authors (XN Y and MC) independently review and extracted data form the eligible studies. The following information was extracted from each article: first author, publication date, region and ethnicity, gender composition, mean age, sample size, refraction method, myopia definition, prevalence of myopia and high myopia etc. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corp., Texas, USA). A Q-statistic test was applied and P < 0.10 was considered to be statistically significant. Besides, I2 value was used to evaluate the heterogeneity, with > 50% as high degree of heterogeneity [15]. When no significant heterogeneity was observed among studies, the summary was pooled by using the fixed-effects model. Otherwise, the random-effects model was applied instead [16, 17]. Egger’s linear regression test [18] and Begg’s funnel plot [19] were used to assess the Potential publication bias.

Statistical analysis

Median [interquartile range (IQR)] and percentage were reported in the descriptive analyses for the continuous variables and the categorical variables, respectively. Myopia prevalence was calculated for fifteen 1-year time intervals from 2001 to 2015. Chi-squared test was used to compare the differences in myopia prevalence between males and females. The annual percentage change (APC) for myopia prevalence was used to quantify the time trends [20, 21]. A regression line was fitted to the natural logarithm of the rates, y = α + βx + ε, where y = ln (rate) and x = calender year, and then the APC was calculated as 100 × (eβ − 1). We also calculated the relative contributions for rate changes which provide us for determining the contributions from different kinds of myopia made to the overall trends [22]. All analyses (except when noted) were performed using SPSS statistics 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) and Graphpad Prism software, version 5.0 (Graphpad software Inc., SanDiego, CA, USA). A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

Basic characteristics of the study population were summarized in Table 1. A total of 43,858 high school students were enrolled from 2001 to 2015, including 21,843 (49.8%) males and 22,015 (50.2%) females. Those who had a history of traumas, eye diseases or refractive surgeries were excluded from the analysis. The average age of the subjects was 18.46 ± 0.69 years old.
Table 1

Basic characteristics of the study population and difference in myopia prevalence between females and males in Fenghua city, eastern China, 2001 to 2015

Year

N (%)

Age

Gender

Female/Male

Myopia prevalence

Female/Male

OR

95% CI

P value

2001

2418

18.50 ± 0.65

1084/1334

81.1/78.3

1.19

0.98 to 1.46

0.087

2002

2324

18.52 ± 0.59

997/1327

86.0/81.8

1.37

1.09 to 1.71

0.007

2003

2462

18.51 ± 0.64

1062/1400

88.7/79.4

2.04

1.62 to 2.57

0.000

2004

2654

18.61 ± 0.68

1247/1407

87.7/79.0

1.90

1.53 to 2.35

0.000

2005

3072

18.48 ± 0.72

1436/1636

85.7/78.2

1.68

1.39 to 2.02

0.000

2006

2974

18.49 ± 0.73

1454/1520

85.8/78.2

1.69

1.40 to 2.05

0.000

2007

3014

18.34 ± 0.57

1497/1517

89.0/78.8

2.19

1.79 to 2.69

0.000

2008

3055

18.64 ± 0.74

1481/1574

89.5/80.7

2.03

1.65 to 2.50

0.000

2009

2930

18.56 ± 0.73

1517/1413

89.0/81.0

1.89

1.54 to 2.33

0.000

2010

3276

18.46 ± 0.70

1801/1475

89.7/84.0

1.65

1.35 to 2.03

0.000

2011

3079

18.51 ± 0.69

1655/1424

89.1/82.9

1.69

1.38 to 2.09

0.000

2012

3283

18.46 ± 0.71

1794/1489

90.1/82.2

1.97

1.60 to 2.41

0.000

2013

3234

18.41 ± 0.65

1755/1479

88.8/83.0

1.62

1.32 to 1.98

0.000

2014

3151

18.39 ± 0.62

1671/1480

90.9/85.3

1.72

1.38 to 2.14

0.000

2015

2932

18.31 ± 0.60

1564/1368

90.8/84.1

1.87

1.49 to 2.34

0.000

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, female vs male, Chi-square test

Changes in refractive error

During the 15 years period, the mean SER significantly increased both in the right eye (from − 2.5 ± 2.0 D to − 3.4 ± 2.3 D) and in the left eye (from − 2.4 ± 2.0D to − 3.2 ± 2.3D). Spearman’s correlation analysis indicated that the refractive error (RE) was closely related between the right and left eyes (Table 2). Representative results presented in our study were from the worse eye of each subject.
Table 2

Correlation of refractive error between the right and left eyes

Year

Right

Left

P valuea

Spearman r

Mean ± SD

Median (IQR)

Mean ± SD

Median (IQR)

2001

−2.5 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

−2.4 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

0.021

0.90

2002

− 2.7 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

− 2.6 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

0.020

0.89

2003

− 2.8 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.5,-2.0)

−2.7 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

0.011

0.89

2004

−2.8 ± 2.0

−3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

− 2.7 ± 2.0

−3.0(−4.0,-2.0)

0.006

0.90

2005

− 2.6 ± 2.1

−3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

− 2.5 ± 2.1

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

0.004

0.90

2006

− 2.7 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

−2.6 ± 2.0

−3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

0.010

0.92

2007

−2.9 ± 2.0

−3.5(− 4.0,-2.0)

− 2.8 ± 2.0

− 3.0(− 4.0,-2.0)

0.037

0.91

2008

− 3.0 ± 2.1

− 3.5(− 4.5,-2.0)

−2.9 ± 2.1

−3.5(− 4.5,-2.0)

0.007

0.92

2009

−3.1 ± 2.2

−3.5(−5.0,-2.0)

−3.0 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 4.5,-2.0)

0.022

0.93

2010

−3.1 ± 2.2

− 3.5(−5.0,-2.25)

−3.0 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 4.5,-2.0)

0.012

0.90

2011

−3.2 ± 2.1

− 3.5(− 5.0,-2.5)

−3.0 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 4.75,-2.0)

0.011

0.92

2012

−3.2 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 5.0,-2.5)

−3.1 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 5.0,-2.0)

0.007

0.93

2013

−3.2 ± 2.1

− 3.5(− 5.0,-2.5)

−3.1 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 5.0,-2.25)

0.010

0.91

2014

−3.3 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 5.0,-2.5)

−3.1 ± 2.2

− 3.5(− 5.0,-2.25)

0.006

0.91

2015

−3.4 ± 2.3

− 3.5(− 5.0, −1.75)

−3.2 ± 2.3

− 3.25(− 5.0, − 1.5)

0.000

0.93

RE refractive error, IQR interquartile range, a Mann Whitney test

Prevalence of myopia

From 2001 to 2015, the prevalence of overall myopia increased from 79.5% to 87.7% (P < 0.05, Fig. 1). Compared between the five groups, the prevalence of non-myopia (20.5% to 12.4%) and low myopia (32.7% to 24.4%) significantly decreased, with a significant increase in the prevalence of moderate myopia (38.8% to 45.7%), high myopia (7.9% to 16.6%) and very high myopia (0.08% to 0.92%).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Proportional distribution of refractive error among young adults in Fenghua city, eastern China, from 2001 to 2015

Fig 2 and Table 3 showed the time trend of myopia prevalence in each subgroup during 2001 to 2015. The annual percent change (APC) was 0.59% (95%CI: 0.41 to 0.77, P = 0.000). Significant decreasing trend was observed in low myopia subgroup (APC = − 1.73, 95%CI: -2.23 to − 1.24, P = 0.000), while significant increasing trend was found in moderate myopia (APC = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.36 to 1.20, P = 0.001), high myopia (APC = 5.48, 95%CI: 4.40 to 6.54, P = 0.000), especially in very high myopia (APC = 14.59, 95%CI: 7.33 to 22.34, P = 0.001). As shown in Table 4, high myopia (contribution rate 27.00%) and very high myopia (contribution rate 69.07%) contributed the major part of the increasing trend of myopia prevalence.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Trends in myopia prevalence among young adults in Fenghua city, eastern China, from 2001 to 2015. (a) Total myopia group; (b) Non-myopia subgroup; (c) Low myopia subgroup; (d) Moderate myopia subgroup (e) High myopia subgroup and (f) Very high myopia subgroup

Table 3

Trends in myopia prevalence among high school students in Fenghua city, eastern China, during 2001 to 2015

 

2001

2015

APC (%)

95%CI

P value

N

Prevalence (%)

N

Prevalence (%)

Total myopia

1923

79.53

2570

87.65

0.59

0.41, 0.77

0.000

Low myopia

791

32.71

716

24.42

−1.73

−2.23, − 1.24

0.000

Moderate myopia

939

38.83

1340

45.70

0.78

0.36, 1.20

0.001

High myopia

191

7.90

487

16.61

5.48

4.40, 6.54

0.000

Very high myopia

2

0.08

27

0.92

14.59

7.33, 22,34

0.001

APC annual percent change, CI, confidence interval, Annual percent change between 2001 and 2015 was calculated by the myopia prevalence

Table 4

The relative contributions of decreasing and increasing trend of myopia prevalence among high school students in Fenghua city during 2001 to 2015

 

Decreasing trend

Increasing trend

 

β

Contribution rate (%)

β

Contribution rate (%)

Low myopia

−0.02

100

  

Moderate myopia

  

0.008

3.93

High myopia

  

0.053

27.00

Very high myopia

  

0.136

69.07

Males versus females

Compared between genders, the prevalence of overall myopia was higher in females than males (Chi-squared test, P < 0.005; except for 2001, P = 0.087, Table 1, Fig. 3). From 2001 to 2015, the prevalence of myopia increased 9.7% in female students (81.1% to 90.8%, mean = 88.1 ± 2.6%, P < 0.001) and 5.8% in male students (78.3% to 84.1%, mean = 81.1 ± 2.4%, P < 0.001), respectively. The odds ratio (OR) was 1.87 (95%CI: 1.49 to 2.34, P = 0.000) in 2015.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

The prevalence of myopia including subgroups in male (a) and female (b) subjects in Fenghua city, eastern China, from 2001 to 2015

Meta-analysis of myopia prevalence

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate myopia prevalence in young adults. The search strategy identified 125 unique articles, from which 12 full-text articles were retrieved for final review after screening titles and abstracts. Characteristics of the included studies were summarized and shown in Table 5. No significant publication bias was found among the included studies (Begg’s P = 0.23, Egger’s P = 0.34). Sensitivity analysis showed that no individual study affected the pooled incidence, both in myopia and high myopia group. Forest plot for included studies showed the prevalence of myopia (Fig. 4 a, incidence 69.9, 95%CI = 49.5–90.3%, I2 = 100%, P = 0.000) and high myopia (Fig. 4 b, incidence 11.6, 95%CI = 7.6–15.6%, I2 = 99.9%, P = 0.000) in the random-effects model (Additional files 1).
Table 5

Summary and meta-analysis of recent studies on myopia and high myopia prevalence among young adults

Author (Year)

Location

Population-based?

N

Refraction

method

Myopia

definition

Mean

Age

Prevalence (%)

Ref

Myopia

High myopia

Jung (2012)

Seoul, Korea

Noa

23,616

CAR

< −0.5D

19

96.5

21.61

Ref 8

Sun (2012)

Shanghai, China

Yes

5083

NCAR

< − 0.5D

20

95.5

19.5

Ref11

Lee (2013)

Taiwan, China

Noa

5145

NCAR

< −0.5D

21.6

86.1

NA

Ref 9

Lin (2004)

Taiwan, China

Yes

45,345

CAR

<−0.25D

18

84

16

Ref17

Lee (2013)

Jeju, Korea

Noa

2805

CAR

< −0.5D

19

83.3

6.8

Ref18

Koh (2014)

Singapore

Noa

28,908

NCAR

< −0.5D

19.5

81.6

14.7

Ref10

Wu (2013)

Shandong, China

Yes

6364

NCAR

≤ −0.5D

17

80

14

Ref12

You (2014)

Beijing, China

Yes

16,771

NCAR

≤ −0.5D

18

74.2

1.8

Ref19

Li (2017)

Beijing, China

Yes

37,424

CAR

≤ −0.5D

15.25

66.48

6.69

Ref13

Matamoros (2015)

France

Yes

100,429

NCAR

≤ −0.5D

38.5

39.1

3.4

Ref19

Dayan (2005)

Israel

Yes

919,929

NCAR

≤ −0.5D

17

28.3

NA

Ref14

Mcknight (2014)

Western Australia

Yes

1344

CAR

< −0.5D

20.1

23.7

NA

Ref21

Meta-analysisb

70 (49–90)

12 (8–16)

adata from male conscripts; NA not available, Ref reference NCAR non-cycloplegic autorefraction, CAR cycloplegic autorefraction. b pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval of myopia and high myopia by meta-analysis

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Meta-analysis of the included studies evaluating the prevalence of myopia (a) and high myopia (b) in young adults, based on random-effects model

Discussion

Our study showed a remarkable increase in the prevalence of myopia among high school students in eastern China over a 15-year period, especially high (APC = 5.48%) and very high myopia (APC = 14.59%). Females were more likely to develop myopia than males.

During the past decades, multiple population-based surveys from different areas of the world have provided comparative data on the prevalence of myopia in young adults (Table 5, Fig. 4 a). In our study, the overall myopia prevalence in high school students increased from 79.5% in 2001 to 87.7% in 2015. In Taiwan, the prevalence of myopia in 18-year-old children increased from 74% in 1983 to 84% in 2004 [23]. In Singapore, the overall myopia prevalence in young males increased from 79.2% in 1996–1997 to 81.6% in 2009–2010 [14]. In Korea, the prevalence of myopia and high myopia among young males was significantly higher in an urban population (96.5% and 21.6% in Seoul) [4] than in a rural population (83.3% and 6.8% in Jeju) [24], which indicated that environmental factors may play an important role in the development of myopia [24]. In contrast, the incidence of myopia in Western countries varies significantly between different ethnic groups, with a rate of 39.1% (2012–2013) in France [25], 72% (2007–2008) in Canada [26], 23.7% (2014) in Western Austria [27] and 33.1% (1999–2004) in the United States [28]. In general, myopia prevalence among young adults in East Asia is much higher than in Western countries.

Another remarkable change shown by our survey was that the proportion of high myopia (7.9% to 16.6%), especially very high myopia (0.08% to 0.92%) significantly increased during a 15-year period. Similar results have been reported previously (Table 5, Fig. 4 b). In the Taiwan study, the prevalence of high myopia among 18-year-old students increased from 10.9% in 1983 to 21% in 2000. The highest prevalence of high myopia was in Seoul (21.61% in 2012) [4], followed by Shanghai (19.5% in 2012) [6], Zhejiang (15.4% in 2014), Shandong (14% in 2013) [7],Beijing (6.69% in 2015) [29] and Jeju (6.8% in 2013) [5]. A recent systematic review predict that by 2050 there will be 4758 million people with myopia (49.8% of the world population) and 938 million people with high myopia (9.8% of the world population) [10]. It has been reported that high myopia is associated with several ocular disorders such as glaucoma, cataract, maculopathy, choroidal neovascularization, macular hole and retinal detachment [11]. The increasing prevalence of high myopia and very high myopia may therefore result in a series of associated complications and become a serious public health problem. Future prevention efforts should be strengthened to control the increasing prevalence of high and very high myopia.

The etiology of myopia still remains unclear. However, genetic and environmental factors are widely believed to play an important role [13]. Near work is one of the important environmental factors [30]. In China, the school system, especially the National College Entrance Examination is becoming more and more competitive. All students aged 16 to 18 years usually spend much time in study and expect to achieve high scores in this important examination. Lack of outdoor activity is very common in Chinese students. For example, 12.5% of students did not take part in any outdoor activity, and 11.2% of high school students did not participate in any physical education classes [31]. Associated factors, such as increasing educational pressures, higher school achievement, more near work and less time in sports activity, may contribute to the increasing prevalence of myopia [32]. Compared between genders, female students usually spend more time with reading and work-related issues, with less outdoor activities, making them more vulnerable to developing myopia [33]. A significantly higher prevalence of myopia in female subjects was observed in our survey, which was consistent with the results of previous studies [6, 34, 35].

Our study has several strengths. First, this was a population-based large scale study including 43,858 participants of similar age, which provided the status of myopia prevalence in this age group. Second, this was a long time period survey, which described a secular change and time trend of myopia prevalence during the past 15 years. However, several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. First, cycloplegia was not used in our survey and it is well known that cycloplegic refraction yields better results than non-cycloplegic autorefraction. Non-cycloplegic autorefraction can result in overestimation of myopia [36]. However, because this was a large scale physical examination, cycloplegic refraction was difficult to apply in each subject due to limited resources. Second, questionnaires and face-to-face interviews were not applied in the study and we have no access to the demographic factors (e.g., race/ ethnicity/ genetic background/ socioeconomic status and so on). Therefore, only descriptive analysis was presented and no multivariate analysis to evaluate the risk factors that account for the increasing prevalence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there was a remarkable increase in the prevalence of myopia among high school students in eastern China over the past 15 years, especially high and very high myopia. Females were more likely to develop myopia than males. More attention should be paid to prevention and control of myopia in the future, especially high and very high myopia.

Abbreviations

APC: 

annual percentage change

BCVA: 

best-corrected visual acuity

CAR: 

cycloplegic autorefraction

CI: 

confidence interval

NCAR: 

non-cycloplegic autorefraction

RE: 

refractive error

SER: 

spherical equivalent refraction

VA: 

visual acuity

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Colleges of Ophthalmology department (Fenghua people’s hospital) and the participants involved in this study as well as the schools where the research was conducted.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.81700829) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

M C, AM W and KJ W designed research; AM W and LN Z conducted research; M C and W W analyzed data; XY C and XN Y performed statistical analysis; M C and KJ W wrote the draft of the manuscript. All authors read, reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical College of Zhejiang University and Fenghua people’s hospital Ethics Review Board. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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)
Eye Center, the 2nd Affiliated Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
(2)
Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Ophthalmology, Hangzhou, China
(3)
Department of Ophthalmology, Fenghua People’s Hospital, Fenghua, Zhejiang, China
(4)
Department of Ophthalmology, Lishui People’s Hospital, Lishui, Zhejiang, China

References

  1. Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM. Myopia. Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1739–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Wong YL, Saw SM. Epidemiology of Pathologic myopia in Asia and worldwide. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2016;5(6):394–402.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Morgan IG, He M, Rose KA. EPIDEMIC OF PATHOLOGIC MYOPIA: what can laboratory studies and epidemiology tell us? Retina. 2017;37(5):989–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Jung SK, Lee JH, Kakizaki H, Jee D. Prevalence of myopia and its association with body stature and educational level in 19-year-old male conscripts in Seoul, South Korea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(9):5579–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lee YY, Lo CT, Sheu SJ, Lin JL. What factors are associated with myopia in young adults? A survey study in Taiwan military conscripts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(2):1026–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sun J, Zhou J, Zhao P, Lian J, Zhu H, Zhou Y, Sun Y, Wang Y, Zhao L, Wei Y, Wang L, Cun B, Ge S, Fan X. High prevalence of myopia and high myopia in 5060 Chinese university students in shanghai. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(12):7504–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Wu JF, Bi HS, Wang SM, Hu YY, Wu H, Sun W, Lu TL, Wang XR, Jonas JB. Refractive error, visual acuity and causes of vision loss in children in Shandong, China. The Shandong children eye study. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82763.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bar Dayan Y, Levin A, Morad Y, Grotto I, Ben-David R, Goldberg A, Onn E, Avni I, Levi Y, Benyamini OG. The changing prevalence of myopia in young adults: a 13-year series of population-based prevalence surveys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(8):2760–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Vitale S, Sperduto RD, Ferris FL 3rd. Increased prevalence of myopia in the United States between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(12):1632–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P, Wong TY, Naduvilath TJ, Resnikoff S. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1036–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ikuno Y. Overview of the complications of high myopia. Retina. 2017;37(12):2347–51.Google Scholar
  12. Leo SW. Scientific Bureau of World Society of Paediatric O, strabismus. Current approaches to myopia control Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2017;28(3):267–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hopf S, Pfeiffer N. Epidemiology of myopia. Ophthalmologe. 2017;114(1):20–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Koh V, Yang A, Saw SM, Chan YH, Lin ST, Tan MM, Tey F, Nah G, Ikram MK. Differences in prevalence of refractive errors in young Asian males in Singapore between 1996-1997 and 2009-2010. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(4):247–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Yu X, Lyu D, Dong X, He J, Yao K. Hypertension and risk of cataract: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114012.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemporary clinical trials. 2007;28(2):105–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Li N, Chen YL, Li J, Li LL, Jiang CZ, Zhou C, Liu CX, Li D, Gong TT, Wu QJ, Huang YH. Decreasing prevalence and time trend of gastroschisis in 14 cities of Liaoning Province: 2006-2015. Sci Rep. 2016;6:33333.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hankey BF, Ries LA, Kosary CL, Feuer EJ, Merrill RM, Clegg LX, Edwards BK. Partitioning linear trends in age-adjusted rates. Cancer Causes Control. 2000;11(1):31–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Xiang YB, Zhang W, Gao LF, Liu ZW, Xu WH, Liu EJ, Ji BT. Methods for time trend analysis of cancer incidence rates. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2004;25(2):173–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin LL, Shih YF, Hsiao CK, Chen CJ. Prevalence of myopia in Taiwanese schoolchildren: 1983 to 2000. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2004;33(1):27–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee JH, Jee D, Kwon JW, Lee WK. Prevalence and risk factors for myopia in a rural Korean population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(8):5466–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Matamoros E, Ingrand P, Pelen F, Bentaleb Y, Weber M, Korobelnik JF, Souied E, Leveziel N. Prevalence of myopia in France: a cross-sectional analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(45):e1976.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Hrynchak PK, Mittelstaedt A, Machan CM, Bunn C, Irving EL. Increase in myopia prevalence in clinic-based populations across a century. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(11):1331–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McKnight CM, Sherwin JC, Yazar S, Forward H, Tan AX, Hewitt AW, Pennell CE, McAllister IL, Young TL, Coroneo MT, Mackey DA. Myopia in young adults is inversely related to an objective marker of ocular sun exposure: the western Australian Raine cohort study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(5):1079–85.Google Scholar
  28. Vitale S, Ellwein L, Cotch MF, Ferris FL 3rd, Sperduto R. Prevalence of refractive error in the United States, 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(8):1111–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Li Y, Liu J, Qi P. The increasing prevalence of myopia in junior high school students in the Haidian District of Beijing, China: a 10-year population-based survey. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. French AN, Ashby RS, Morgan IG, Rose KA. Time outdoors and the prevention of myopia. Exp Eye Res. 2013;114:58–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ji CY, Chen TJ. Working group on obesity in C. Empirical changes in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among Chinese students from 1985 to 2010 and corresponding preventive strategies. Biomed Environ Sci. 2013;26(1):1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose KA, Morgan IG, Smith W, Burlutsky G, Mitchell P, Saw SM. Myopia, lifestyle, and schooling in students of Chinese ethnicity in Singapore and Sydney. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(4):527–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. You QS, Wu LJ, Duan JL, Luo YX, Liu LJ, Li X, Gao Q, Wang W, Xu L, Jonas JB, Guo XH. Prevalence of myopia in school children in greater Beijing: the Beijing childhood eye study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(5):e398–406.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Guo YH, Lin HY, Lin LL, Cheng CY. Self-reported myopia in Taiwan: 2005 Taiwan National Health Interview Survey. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(5):684–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Ferraz FH, Corrente JE, Opromolla P, Padovani CR, Schellini SA. Refractive errors in a Brazilian population: age and sex distribution. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015;35(1):19–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanfilippo PG, Chu BS, Bigault O, Kearns LS, Boon MY, Young TL, Hammond CJ, Hewitt AW, Mackey DA. What is the appropriate age cut-off for cycloplegia in refraction? Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(6):e458–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement