Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
100
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      IMI Risk Factors for Myopia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Risk factor analysis provides an important basis for developing interventions for any condition. In the case of myopia, evidence for a large number of risk factors has been presented, but they have not been systematically tested for confounding. To be useful for designing preventive interventions, risk factor analysis ideally needs to be carried through to demonstration of a causal connection, with a defined mechanism. Statistical analysis is often complicated by covariation of variables, and demonstration of a causal relationship between a factor and myopia using Mendelian randomization or in a randomized clinical trial should be aimed for. When strict analysis of this kind is applied, associations between various measures of educational pressure and myopia are consistently observed. However, associations between more nearwork and more myopia are generally weak and inconsistent, but have been supported by meta-analysis. Associations between time outdoors and less myopia are stronger and more consistently observed, including by meta-analysis. Measurement of nearwork and time outdoors has traditionally been performed with questionnaires, but is increasingly being pursued with wearable objective devices. A causal link between increased years of education and more myopia has been confirmed by Mendelian randomization, whereas the protective effect of increased time outdoors from the development of myopia has been confirmed in randomized clinical trials. Other proposed risk factors need to be tested to see if they modulate these variables. The evidence linking increased screen time to myopia is weak and inconsistent, although limitations on screen time are increasingly under consideration as interventions to control the epidemic of myopia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references271

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

          In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050.

            Myopia is a common cause of vision loss, with uncorrected myopia the leading cause of distance vision impairment globally. Individual studies show variations in the prevalence of myopia and high myopia between regions and ethnic groups, and there continues to be uncertainty regarding increasing prevalence of myopia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.

              Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial. We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%. For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis of the causes of individual differences in human traits thus far and will guide future gene-mapping efforts. All the results can be visualized using the MaTCH webtool.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                iovs
                IOVS
                Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
                The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
                0146-0404
                1552-5783
                28 April 2021
                April 2021
                : 62
                : 5
                : 3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
                [2 ]State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
                [3 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
                [4 ]Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
                [5 ]College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
                [6 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [7 ]Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [8 ]The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [9 ]Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
                [10 ]Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong, China
                [11 ]Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China
                [12 ]Aier School of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Changsha, China
                [13 ]Aier School of Optometry, Hubei University of Science and Technology, Xianning, China
                [14 ]Aier Institute of Optometry and Vision Science, Aier Eye Hospital Group, Changsha, China
                [15 ]Guangzhou Aier Eye Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
                [16 ]National Centre for Optics, Vision and Eye Care, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway
                [17 ]Department of Preventative Ophthalmology, Shanghai Eye Disease Prevention and Treatment Center, Shanghai Eye Hospital, Shanghai, China
                [18 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
                [19 ]Shanghai Key Laboratory of Ocular Fundus Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China
                [20 ]Brien Holden Vision Institute Limited, Sydney, Australia
                [21 ]School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
                [22 ]Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore
                [23 ]Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore
                [24 ]Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
                [25 ]Discipline of Orthoptics, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [26 ]School of Optometry & Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Ian G. Morgan, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; ian.morgan@ 123456anu.edu.au .
                Article
                IOVS-20-32034
                10.1167/iovs.62.5.3
                8083079
                33909035
                59e04158-ea69-4a70-a95b-73dbd46a71c4
                Copyright 2021 The Authors

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 24 December 2020
                : 21 December 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 20
                Categories
                Special Issue
                Special Issue

                myopia,prevention,circadian rhythms,prevalence,diet,risk factors,education,nearwork,time outdoors,screen time,mendelian randomization,randomized clinical trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article