Prevalence of Refractive Errors Among School-Age Children and Adolescents in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abdulmajeed Al Khathami,1,* Mohamed Baklola,2,* Anwar Ali Alshehri,3 Lujain Hussain Alnasser,4 Razan Saleh Alshehri,5 Mohammed A Salawi,6 Rahaf Hussain Alwadai,7 Mohammed Al Ghazwi,8 Amira Ahmed Qadim Alanazi,9 Asayel Mojidea Alshammari,10 Naji Al-bawah,11,* Mayas Hafez,12 Abdullah Abu Melha1 1Department of Ophthalmology, King Fahad Hospital, Al Baha Health Cluster, Al Baha, Saudi Arabia; 2Faculty of Medicine, Mansour University, Mansoura, Egypt; 3College of Medicine, University of Bisha, Bisha, Saudi Arabia; 4College of Medicine, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia; 5Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, College of Medicine, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 6College of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia; 7College of Medicine, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia; 8Batterjee Medicine college, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 9College of Medicine, Northern Border University, Arar, Saudi Arabia; 10College of Medicine, Aljouf University, Aljouf, Saudi Arabia; 11Faculty of Medicine, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen; 12Qatif Central Hospital, Al Qatif, 32654, Saudi Arabia*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Naji Al-bawah, Email Najialbawah@gmail.com Mohamed Baklola, Email Mohamedbaklola2000@gmail.comBackground: Refractive errors, including myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism, are a leading cause of visual impairment among children worldwide. In Saudi Arabia, the prevalence of these conditions among school-age children and adolescents remains poorly understood, with significant variations reported across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive estimate of the pooled prevalence of refractive errors in this population and explored factors influencing their distribution.Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Observational studies reporting the prevalence of refractive errors among Saudi school-aged children and adolescents were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic.Results: Nine studies including over 15,000 participants were analyzed. The pooled prevalence of myopia was 6.7% (95% CI: 3.0% to 14.2%), hyperopia was 3.6% (95% CI: 1.3% to 9.8%), and astigmatism was 7.7% (95% CI: 2.5% to 20.9%). Subgroup analysis revealed regional disparities, with the highest myopia prevalence reported in Taif (33.3%) and Bisha (22.5%), and the lowest in Medina (1.6%). Studies conducted after 2018 showed a significantly higher pooled myopia prevalence (16.4%, 95% CI: 8% to 30.5%) compared to those published before 2018 (3.3%, 95% CI: 1.4% to 7.5%) (p < 0.001). While studies using cycloplegic refraction reported a slightly higher myopia prevalence (7.2%, 95% CI: 4.7% to 11%) than those using non-cycloplegic methods (6.7%, 95% CI: 2.4% to 17.5%), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.9). No significant difference was observed between studies with smaller or larger sample sizes, although high heterogeneity persisted across all subgroups.Conclusion: Refractive errors, particularly astigmatism, represent a significant and growing public health issue among Saudi school-aged children and adolescents. The findings underscore the urgent need for standardized diagnostic protocols, including the use of cycloplegic refraction, and the implementation of school-based vision screening programs.Keywords: myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, refractive errors, children
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,019 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».