Abstract
purpose. To determine the incidence and progression rates of myopia in young Singaporean children.
methods. A prospective cohort study, the Singapore Cohort Study of the Risk Factors for Myopia (SCORM), was conducted in two schools in Singapore (1999–2002). Children aged 7 to 9 years (n = 981) were followed up over a 3-year period. Cycloplegic autorefraction and biometry parameter measures were performed annually, according to the same protocol.
results. The 3-year cumulative incidence rates were 47.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.2–53.3), 38.4% (95% CI: 31.4–45.4), and 32.4% (95% CI: 21.8–43.1) for 7-, 8-, and 9-year-old children, respectively. The 3-year cumulative incidence rates were higher in Chinese (49.5% vs. 27.2%) and in 7-year-old compared with 9-year-old children at baseline (47.7% vs. 32.4%), though the latter relationship was of borderline significance after adjustment for race, gender, amount of reading (books/week), and parental myopia (P = 0.057). Premyopic children with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia. The 3-year mean cumulative myopia progression rates were −2.40 D (95% CI: −2.57 to −2.22) in 7-year-old myopic children, −1.97 (95% CI: −2.16 to −1.78) in 8-year-olds, and −1.71 (95% CI: −1.98 to −1.44) in 9-year-olds.
conclusions. Both the incidence and progression rates of myopia are high in Singaporean children.
Myopia is the most common refractive error and is easily correctable with optical devices. The public health impact of myopia, however, should not be underestimated, because myopia is associated with potentially blinding conditions, such as myopic neovascular macular degeneration, and because of the considerable economic impact of optometry visits, contact lenses, spectacles, and refractive surgery.
1 2 3 In urban East Asian cities, there are reports of “epidemics” of myopia that do not appear to abate.
4
The age of onset of myopia is frequently between 5 and 15 years of age, and it is one of the most common childhood ocular diseases.
5 Several surveys depicting myopia prevalence rates have been conducted over the past few decades, but there are few longitudinal studies. Although longitudinal refractive error data from adults are readily available, few cohort studies have evaluated the incidence and progression of myopia in children.
6 7 The prevalence rates of myopia (defined as spherical equivalent [SE] of at least −0.5 D) in the multicenter Refractive Error Study in Children (RESC), conducted in children aged 5 to 15 years, were 7.4% in India, 4.0% in South Africa, and <3% in Nepal.
8 9 10 In a longitudinal study of children (
n = 4662) aged 5 to 12 years in Shunyi, China, the cumulative incidence rate of myopia (SE at least −0.5 D) was 14.1% over a 28.5-month period and the mean progression rate was −0.42 D over the same period.
11 No ocular biometry data were available. In a 12-month longitudinal study conducted in Hong Kong, the annual incidence rate of myopia (SE at least −0.5 D) was 14.4% in children aged 5 to 16 years.
12 Other data on the progression rates of myopia in children have been derived primarily from volunteers in the control arm of randomized clinical trials of interventions to retard the progression of myopia, such as the U.S.-based Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET; mean annual progression, −0.59 D per year in 6- to 9-year-olds) and the Houston Myopia Control Study (mean annual progression, −0.34 D per year in 6- to 15-year-olds).
13 14 In a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of rigid gas-permeable contact lenses in Singapore, the rate of progression of myopia was −0.63 D per year in the control arm.
15
In this study, we sought to describe the incidence and progression rates of myopia in a school-based cohort and the variations of these rates with age, gender, and race in young Singaporean children.
The tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki were observed, and approval was granted by the Singapore Eye Research Institute Ethics Committee. Similar procedures were performed at the annual school visits. In brief, cycloplegia was induced in each eye by the instillation of 3 drops of 1% cyclopentolate 5 minutes apart. At least 30 minutes after the last drop, five consecutive refraction and keratometry readings were obtained with one of two calibrated autokeratorefractometers (model RK5; Canon, Inc. Ltd., Tochigiken, Japan). Contact ultrasound biometry measurements were performed with one of two biometry machines (Echoscan model US-800, probe frequency of 10 mHz; Nidek Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), after 1 drop of 0.5% proparacaine was administered. The average of six measurements was taken if the standard deviation was <0.12 mm. If the standard deviation of the six measurements was ≥0.12 mm, the data were not included, and the measurements were repeated until the standard deviation was <0.12 mm.
Spherical equivalent (SE) is defined as spherical power plus half negative cylinder power. Because the refractive error (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.95) and axial length data (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.94) from the right and left eyes were similar, only the results from the right eye are presented. Myopia was defined as SE of at least −0.5 D. Levels of myopia included low myopia, defined as SE ≤ −0.5 D and >−3 D; higher myopia, defined as SE ≤ −3 D and >−6 D; and high myopia, defined as SE at least −6.0 D.
The cumulative incidence rate of myopia is defined as the proportion of participants in whom myopia developed during the 3-year follow-up period who had myopia at the baseline visit. The age-, gender-, and race-specific cumulative incidence rate of myopia and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The multivariate adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs of myopia were derived from multiple logistic regression models and the explanatory variables age, gender, race, amount of reading (books/week), and parental myopia were included.
Change in refraction was defined as the refraction at the baseline examination subtracted from that at the final examination, divided by the total duration of follow-up in years. Multiple linear regression models were constructed with changes in refraction as the dependent variable and age, gender, race, amount of reading, and parental myopia as covariates. Statistical analyses were conducted with commercially available software (SAS, ver. 8.2; SAS, Cary, NC).
There were 331 myopic children at baseline and 321 children had at least one follow-up visit and 273 children completed 3 years of follow-up. We evaluated the progression of myopia among the 273 myopic children with 3 years of follow-up
(Table 4) . There were 21 (7.7%) with three visits and 252 (92.3%) with four visits. There were 123 aged 7 years, 95 aged 8 years, and 55 aged 9 years at baseline and 146 (53.5%) were boys. At baseline, the mean SE was −2.13 D (range, −9.13 to −0.50), and there were nine (3.3%) with high myopia (SE at least −6.0 D).
The 3-year cumulative mean myopia progression rate was −2.40 D (95% CI: −2.57 to −2.22) in 7-year-olds, −1.97 D (95% CI: −2.16 to −1.78) in 8-year-olds, and −1.71 D (95% CI: −1.98 to −1.44) in 9-year-olds. The cumulative 3-year myopia progression rate in 7-year-olds was higher (−2.40 D) compared with that in 9-year-olds (−1.71 D; P < 0.001). The girls had greater rates of myopia progression (−2.38 D/y) than did the boys (−1.88 D/y; P < 0.001), whereas the Chinese children had faster rates of myopia progression (−2.18 D/y) than did the non-Chinese (−1.71 D per year; P = 0.005). The associations of age, gender, and race with myopia progression remained positive in a multiple linear regression model with 3-year cumulative myopia progression as the dependent variable and age, gender, race, amount of reading, and parental myopia as covariates. For every yearly increase in baseline age of the child, the 3-year cumulative rate of myopia progression decreased by 0.35 D, after adjustment for gender, race, amount of reading, and parental myopia. The overall yearly rate of change in progression of myopia decreased with time: (−0.95 D, 95% CI: −0.89 to −1.00 in the first year; −0.69 D, 95% CI: −0.64 to −0.74 in the second year; and −0.47 D; 95% CI: −0.42 to −0.51 in the third year; P < 0.001).
The proportion of children with high myopia (SE at least −6.0 D) at the final follow-up visit were 17.9% of 7-year-olds, 16.8% of 8-year-olds, and 14.6% of 9-year-olds. The proportion of children who attained a final refraction greater than –6.0 D was highest in those with more severe myopia at baseline (P < 0.001) and who were younger at baseline (0.023), even after controlling for age of onset of myopia, gender, race, amount of reading, and parental myopia.
Our findings showed that the incidence rates of myopia (3-year cumulative incidence rates, 42.7%, 38.4%, and 32.4% in 7-, 8-, and 9-year-old children, respectively) were high in Singaporean children. The incidence rates were higher in Chinese and in children with the following premyopic biometry characteristics: longer axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses. The 3-year cumulative mean myopia progression rates among 273 myopic children were −2.40 D (95% CI: −2.57 to +2.22) in 7-year-old children, −1.97 (95% CI: −2.16 to −1.78) in 8-year-olds, and −1.71 (95% CI: −1.98 to −1.44) in 9-year-olds. These rates were greater in younger children, girls, and Chinese.
The 3-year cumulative mean rates of progression of myopia in our school-based study are high. We report rates of −2.40 D in 7-year-olds, −1.97 D in 8-year-olds, and −1.71 D in 9-year-olds. In the Hong Kong myopia study of school children aged 5 to 16 years, the myopia progression rate was −0.63 D per year.
12 The Houston Myopia Control Study (1981–1982) of bifocals reported rates of annual myopia progression of −0.34 D per year in children aged 6 to 15 years in the control arm.
14 Interstudy comparisons are limited by differences in the nature of recruitment strategies, ethnic composition, and ages of the children. It appears that the rates of myopia progression in the United States are half those in children in Asian countries.
In multivariate analysis, the rate of myopia progression in Singaporean school children is highest in younger children, Chinese children, and girls. In 142 Hong Kong Chinese children aged 6 to 17 years, the myopia progression rates were greatest in younger children, but there were no gender differences.
24 The data from the Hong Kong study are not directly comparable, because adolescent children were included. A greater change toward myopia in younger than in older children was found in Finnish children aged 7 to 15 years.
25
In our study, the proportion of myopic children with high myopia (SE at least −6.0 D) at the end of the 3- year follow-up (children aged 9–11 years) was 16.8%. Myopia continues to progress into the early 20s and thus, with earlier ages of onset, as seen in our cohort, a longer period of progression may mean more highly myopic children in the future. The risks of development of high myopia (SE at least −6.0 D) and associated complications such as retinal tears or myopic macular degeneration in adulthood will be considerably higher in this young cohort.
There are tremendous public health implications in the observed trend of development of early myopia during the preschool or early elementary years. Large-scale visual acuity screening programs may be launched to detect low vision due to undercorrected myopia early and to update current spectacle prescriptions. Public and school-based health education programs may also be targeted at the very young. Myopia prevention strategies may include reassessments of current educational systems in urban East Asian communities. The overemphasis on academic performance and paucity of structured outdoor activity in Asian schools may be a leading factor contributing to the high myopia incidence rates in the very young. For children with high myopia, referrals to ophthalmologists or optometrists to screen for potentially blinding conditions are recommended.
The strengths of our study are the availability of 3-year longitudinal cycloplegic refraction and biometry data of 1019 young children in an area where myopia is apparently endemic. The limitations of the present study must be acknowledged. There is a possibility that the data are not entirely generalizable to all children in Singapore, as the schools were not selected at random. The children (38%) who did not agree to participate may have had a different (either higher or lower) incidence rate of myopia, and thus the overall incidence rates in the study population may be biased. However, comparisons of demographic factors within the cohort should hold. As with all cohort incidence studies, some children may not remain throughout the entire duration of the study and may be lost to follow-up. The 3-year loss to follow-up rate was low (119/688; 17.3%) and children who were lost to follow-up were more likely to be non-Chinese and therefore may have lower incidence rates than did children not lost to follow-up. The distribution of baseline refractive errors for children who remained in the study and those lost to follow-up was similar.
In conclusion, the 3-year cumulative incidence rates of myopia are 47.7% in 7-year-old children, 38.4% in 8-year-old children, and 32.4% in 9-year-old children. Premyopic children with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses are more prone to the development of myopia. The 3-year cumulative mean myopia progression rate is −2.40 D in 7-year-olds, −1.97 D in 8-year-olds, and −1.71 D in 9-year-olds. These data are important to ophthalmologists and health administrators for health care evaluation and planning.
Supported by National Medical Research Council Grant NMRC/0695/2002, Singapore.
Submitted for publication May 20, 2004; revised August 2 and September 9, 2004; accepted September 15, 2004.
Disclosure:
S.-M. Saw, None;
L. Tong, None;
W.-H. Chua, None;
K.-S. Chia, None;
D. Koh, None;
D.T.H. Tan, None;
J. Katz, None
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked “
advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Corresponding author: Seang-Mei Saw, Department of Community, Occupational and Family Medicine, National University of Singapore, 16 Medical Drive, Singapore 117597, Republic of Singapore;
[email protected].
Table 1. Incidence Rates of Myopia
Table 1. Incidence Rates of Myopia
| Number at Baseline | 3-Year Cumulative Incidence Rate of Myopia (%; 95% CI) | Multivariate Odds Ratios of Myopia* (95% CI) |
| All | 569 | 42.7 (38.6–46.8) | |
| Age at baseline (y) | | | |
| 7 | 310 | 47.7 (42.2–53.3) | 1 (referent) |
| 8 | 185 | 38.4 (31.4–45.4) | 0.72 (0.49–1.06) |
| 9 | 74 | 32.4 (21.8–43.1) | 0.66 (0.37–1.15) |
| P | | 0.006 | 0.057 |
| Race | | | |
| Chinese | 396 | 49.5 (44.6–54.4) | 1 (referent) |
| Non-Chinese | 173 | 27.2 (20.5–33.8) | 0.44 (0.29–0.67) |
| P | | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Gender | | | |
| Male | 273 | 39.6 (33.8–45.4) | 1 (referent) |
| Female | 296 | 45.6 (39.9–51.3) | 1.34 (0.94–1.90) |
| P | | 0.15 | 0.10 |
Table 2. Incidence Rates of Myopia by Biometry Parameters at Baseline
Table 2. Incidence Rates of Myopia by Biometry Parameters at Baseline
| Baseline Biometry | Number at Baseline | 3-Year Cumulative Incidence Rate of Myopia (%; 95% CI) | Multivariate Odds Ratios of Myopia* (95% CI) |
| Axial length (mm), † | | | |
| 1st quartile (21.12, 22.49) | 139 | 30.2 (22.6–37.9) | 1 (referent) |
| 2nd quartile (22.50, 22.96) | 145 | 40.0 (32.0–48.0) | 1.61 (0.95–2.73) |
| 3rd quartile (22.98, 23.46) | 138 | 43.5 (35.2–51.8) | 2.29 (1.32–3.97) |
| 4th quartile (23.47, 25.21) | 135 | 57.0 (48.7–65.4) | 4.34 (2.45–7.68) |
| P | | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Vitreous chamber depth (mm), † | | | |
| 1st quartile (13.88, 15.41) | 138 | 33.3 (25.5–41.2) | 1 (referent) |
| 2nd quartile (15.42, 15.89) | 140 | 36.4 (28.5–44.4) | 1.31 (0.77–2.24) |
| 3rd quartile (15.90, 16.36) | 142 | 44.4 (36.2–52.5) | 1.81 (1.07–3.09) |
| 4th quartile (16.37, 17.96) | 135 | 56.3 (47.6–64.7) | 3.49 (2.00–6.09) |
| P | | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Lens thickness (mm), † | | | |
| 1st quartile (2.89, 3.34) | 132 | 50.0 (41.5–58.5) | 1 (referent) |
| 2nd quartile (3.35, 3.46) | 148 | 42.6 (34.6–50.5) | 0.72 (0.44–1.19) |
| 3rd quartile (3.47, 3.58) | 126 | 36.5 (28.1–44.9) | 0.55 (0.33–0.93) |
| 4th quartile (3.59, 4.21) | 149 | 40.9 (33.0–48.8) | 0.62 (0.37–1.02) |
| P | | 0.09 | 0.037 |
| Anterior chamber depth (mm), † | | | |
| 1st quartile (2.68, 3.42) | 143 | 35.7 (27.8–43.5) | 1 (referent) |
| 2nd quartile (3.43, 3.61) | 133 | 47.4 (38.9–55.9) | 1.61 (0.96–2.68) |
| 3rd quartile (3.62, 3.78) | 139 | 39.6 (31.4–47.7) | 1.31 (0.79–2.17) |
| 4th quartile (3.79, 4.66) | 140 | 47.9 (39.6–56.1) | 1.84 (1.10–3.05) |
| P | | 0.12 | 0.047 |
| Corneal curvature radius (mm), † | | | |
| 1st quartile (2.89, 3.34) | 135 | 43.0 (34.6–51.3) | 1 (referent) |
| 2nd quartile (3.35, 3.46) | 148 | 44.6 (36.6–52.6) | 1.10 (0.67–1.80) |
| 3rd quartile (3.47, 3.58) | 145 | 40.7 (32.7–48.7) | 0.98 (0.59–1.63) |
| 4th quartile (3.59, 4.21) | 140 | 42.9 (34.7–51.1) | 1.05 (0.63–1.76) |
| P | | 0.81 | 0.96 |
Table 3. Spherical Equivalent for Myopic and Nonmyopic Children
Table 3. Spherical Equivalent for Myopic and Nonmyopic Children
| Baseline Visit | Visit 1 | Visit 2 | Visit 3 |
| No myopia | | | | |
| (SE > −0.5 D) | +0.54 (−0.48 to +4.75) | +0.12 (−2.05 to +4.88) | −0.21 (−3.18 to +4.73) | −0.46 (−4.23 to +4.65) |
| Low myopia | | | | |
| (−3 D <SE ≤−0.5 D) | −1.41 (−2.98 to −0.50) | −2.31 (−4.80 to −0.35) | −3.01 (−6.55 to −0.58) | −3.48 (−7.55 to −0.25) |
| Higher myopia | | | | |
| (−6 D < SE ≤−3 D) | −3.98 (−5.70 to −3.03) | −5.08 (−7.68 to −3.53) | −5.82 (−8.10 to −3.93) | −6.31 (−9.15 to −3.85) |
| High myopia | | | | |
| (SE at least−6.0 D) | −7.15 (−9.13 to −6.03) | −7.90 (−10.15 to −6.80) | −8.46 (−10.15 to −7.30) | −8.71 (−10.85 to −7.88) |
Table 4. Three-year Cumulative Myopia Progression Rates among Myopic Children
Table 4. Three-year Cumulative Myopia Progression Rates among Myopic Children
| Number at Baseline | 3-Year Cumulative Myopia Progression Rate (D)* Mean (95% CI) | Multivariable Adjusted Beta Coefficient, † (95% CI) | % with Change > −2.0 D | % with Myopia > −6.0 D at the Final Follow-up Visit |
| All | 273 | −2.11 (−2.23 to −1.99) | – | 20.2 | 16.9 |
| Age at baseline (y) | | | | | |
| 7 | 123 | −2.40 (−2.57 to −2.22) | | 65.9 | 17.9 |
| 8 | 95 | −1.97 (−2.16 to −1.78) | | 51.6 | 16.8 |
| 9 | 55 | −1.71 (−1.98 to −1.44) | 0.35 (0.19 to 0.50) | 32.7 | 14.6 |
| P | | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.86 |
| Gender | | | | | |
| Male | 146 | −1.88 (−2.03 to −1.72) | | 47.3 | 18.5 |
| Female | 127 | −2.38 (−2.55 to −2.20) | −0.51 (−0.74 to −0.29) | 62.2 | 15.0 |
| P | | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.013 | 0.44 |
| Race | | | | | |
| Chinese | 231 | −2.18 (−2.31 to −2.06) | | 57.1 | 18.2 |
| Non-Chinese | 42 | −1.71 (−2.05 to −1.38) | 0.38 (0.05 to 0.70) | 38.1 | 9.5 |
| P | | 0.005 | 0.025 | 0.023 | 0.17 |
The authors thank Angela Cheng, Jacqui Ong, and Chye-Fong Peck for coordinating the SCORM study and Lin Yu for assisting in the data analyses.
TanoY. Pathologic myopia: where are we now?. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:645–660.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]JavittJC, ChiangYP. The socioeconomic aspects of laser refractive surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:1526–1530.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]SawSM, KatzJ, ScheinOD, ChewSJ, ChanTK. Epidemiology of myopia. Epidemiol Rev. 1996;18:175–187.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MuttiDO, BullimoreMA. Myopia: an epidemic of possibilities?. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:257–258.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]LinLL, ShihYF, TsaiCB, et al. Epidemiologic study of ocular refraction among schoolchildren in Taiwan in 1995. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:275–281.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]GuzowskiM, WangJJ, RochtchinaE, RoseKA, MitchellP. Five-year refractive changes in an older population. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1364–1370.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]LeeKE, KleinBE, KleinR, WongTY. Changes in refraction over 10 years in an adult population: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2566–2571.
[PubMed]MurthyGV, GuptaSK, EllweinLB, et al. Refractive error in children in an urban population in New Delhi. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:623–631.
[PubMed]NaidooKS, RaghunandanA, MashigeKP, et al. Refractive error and visual impairment in African children in South Africa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3764–3770.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]PokharelGP, NegrelAD, MunozSR, EllweinLB. Refractive Error Study in Children: results from Mechi Zone, Nepal. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:436–444.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]ZhaoJ, MaoJ, LuoR, LiF, MunozSR, EllweinLB. The progression of refractive error in school-age children: Shunyi District, China. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:735–743.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]FanDS, LamDS, LamRF, et al. Prevalence, incidence and progression of myopia of school children in Hong Kong. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:1071–1075.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]GwiazdaJ, HymanL, HusseinM, et al. A randomized clinical trial of progressive addition lenses versus single vision lenses on the progression of myopia in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1492–1500.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]GrosvenorT, PerriginDM, PerriginJ, MaslovitzB. Houston Myopia Control Study: a randomized clinical trial. Part II. Final report by the patient care team. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987;64:482–498.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]KatzJ, ScheinOD, LevyB, et al. A randomized trial of rigid gas permeable contact lenses to reduce progression of children’s myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:82–90.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]SawSM, ChuaWH, HongCY, et al. Nearwork in early-onset myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:332–339.
[PubMed]SawSM, ChuaWH, HongCY, et al. Height and its relationship to refraction and biometry parameters in Singapore Chinese children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1408–1413.
[PubMed]ZhangMZ, SawSM, HongRZ, et al. Refractive errors in Singapore and Xiamen, China: a comparative study in school children aged 6 to 7 years. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:302–308.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MuttiDO, MitchellGL, MoeschbergerML, JonesLA, ZadnikK. Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children’s refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:3633–3640.
[PubMed]ZhaoJ, PanX, SuiR, MunozSR, SperdutoRD, EllweinLB. Refractive Error Study in Children: results from Shunyi District, China. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:427–435.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MaulE, BarrosoS, MunozSR, SperdutoRD, EllweinLB. Refractive Error Study in Children: results from La Florida, Chile. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:445–454.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]DandonaR, DandonaL, SrinivasM, et al. Refractive error in children in a rural population in India. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:615–622.
[PubMed]ZadnikK, SatarianoWA, MuttiDO, SholtzRI, AdamsAJ. The effect of parental history of myopia on children’s eye size. JAMA. 1994;271:1323–1327.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]LamCS, EdwardsM, MillodotM, GohWS. A 2-year longitudinal study of myopia progression and optical component changes among Hong Kong schoolchildren. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:370–380.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MantyjarviMI. Changes of refraction in schoolchildren. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103:790–792.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]