IOVS AJP: Heart and Circulatory Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mutti, D. O.
Right arrow Articles by Zadnik, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mutti, D. O.
Right arrow Articles by Zadnik, K.
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2000;41:2103-2107.)
© 2000 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Age-Related Decreases in the Prevalence of Myopia: Longitudinal Change or Cohort Effect?

Donald O. Mutti and Karla Zadnik

From The Ohio State University College of Optometry, Columbus, Ohio.

PURPOSE. The prevalence of myopia shows a decline with age in cross-sectional studies. This pattern may represent an increase in the prevalence of myopia in younger generations, possibly through increased exposure to near work, or an intrinsic age-related decline in myopia prevalence. Data were analyzed from published studies to determine which of these two alternatives better explains the data: a cohort effect of changing prevalence by decade or a longitudinal effect of changing prevalence as a function of age.

METHODS. Prevalence data were taken from three studies conducted in the late 1980s and compared with those obtained indirectly from a national survey conducted in the early 1970s. The prevalence of myopia was then plotted as a function of age and year of birth.

RESULTS. The pattern of change in the prevalence of myopia as a function of age was consistent across all studies when data were scaled relative to the prevalence of myopia at age-range midpoints from 44.5 to 49.5 years. The pattern of change was not consistent as a function of year of birth. When the data were scaled relative to the prevalence of myopia among those with years of birth from 1940 to 1942 and plotted by year of birth, results from the early 1970s were offset from those of later studies by approximately 18 years.

CONCLUSIONS. The decline in the prevalence of myopia in older adults between the early 1970s and the late 1980s can be better explained by age than by year of birth. The prevalence of myopia appears to decrease because of an intrinsic age-related decrease in the amount of an individual’s myopia rather than because of a cohort effect of increasing prevalence over time. The hypothesis that increasing environmental exposures to near work in recent decades have changed the prevalence of myopia is not supported by this analysis.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch OphthalmolHome page
S. Vitale, L. Ellwein, M. F. Cotch, F. L. Ferris III, and R. Sperduto
Prevalence of Refractive Error in the United States, 1999-2004
Arch Ophthalmol, August 1, 2008; 126(8): 1111 - 1119.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
K. Tarczy-Hornoch, M. Ying-Lai, R. Varma, and the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group
Myopic Refractive Error in Adult Latinos: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2006; 47(5): 1845 - 1852.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
A. P. Klein, P. Duggal, K. E. Lee, R. Klein, J. E. Bailey-Wilson, and B. E. K. Klein
Support for Polygenic Influences on Ocular Refractive Error
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2005; 46(2): 442 - 446.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch OphthalmolHome page
The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group
The Prevalence of Refractive Errors Among Adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia
Arch Ophthalmol, April 1, 2004; 122(4): 495 - 505.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
C.-Y. Cheng, W.-M. Hsu, J.-H. Liu, S.-Y. Tsai, and P. Chou
Refractive Errors in an Elderly Chinese Population in Taiwan: The Shihpai Eye Study
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2003; 44(11): 4630 - 4638.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
D. O. Mutti, G. L. Mitchell, M. L. Moeschberger, L. A. Jones, and K. Zadnik
Parental Myopia, Near Work, School Achievement, and Children's Refractive Error
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2002; 43(12): 3633 - 3640.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
S.-M. Saw, G. Gazzard, D. Koh, M. Farook, D. Widjaja, J. Lee, and D. T. H. Tan
Prevalence Rates of Refractive Errors in Sumatra, Indonesia
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2002; 43(10): 3174 - 3180.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
K. E. Lee, B. E. K. Klein, R. Klein, and T. Y. Wong
Changes in Refraction over 10 Years in an Adult Population: The Beaver Dam Eye Study
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., August 1, 2002; 43(8): 2566 - 2571.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
C. J. Hammond, H. Snieder, C. E. Gilbert, and T. D. Spector
Genes and Environment in Refractive Error: The Twin Eye Study
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2001; 42(6): 1232 - 1236.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology