The association between screen time exposure and myopia in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review epidemiological evidence on associations between screen time exposure and myopia in children and adolescents, and to quantitatively evaluate summary effect estimates from existing literature. METHOD: There were three online databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, for epidemiological studies on screen time exposure and myopia published before June 1, 2023. The risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the correlation between screen time exposure and myopia using random or fixed-effect models by exposure type (categorical/continuous). We also performed subgroup analysis by screen device type, study quality, geographic region, and research period. RESULTS: We searched 7,571 records from three databases and identified 19 eligible studies, including 14 high-quality studies and 5 moderate-quality studies. Meta-analyses suggested that there was a statistically significant correlation between screen time (high vs. low) and myopia. The pooled ORs with 95%CIs were respectively 2.24 (1.47-3.42) for cross-sectional studies, and 2.39 (2.07-2.76) for cohort studies. We also found a significant association between continuous exposure to screen time (per 1 h/d increase) and myopia in cohort studies. The pooled ORs with 95%CIs were 1.07 (1.01-1.13). In subgroup analysis stratified by screen device type in cross-sectional studies, screen time exposures from computers (categorical: OR = 8.19, 95%CI: 4.78-14.04; continuous: OR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.10-1.35) and televisions (categorical: OR = 1.46, 95%CI: 1.02-2.10) were associated with myopia, while smartphones were not. Although publication bias was detected, the pooled results did not show significant changes after adjustment using the trim and fill method. CONCLUSION: Our findings support that screen time exposure was significantly associated with myopia in children and adolescents. Notably, screen time exposure from computers may have the most significant impact on myopia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".